California officially certifies its delegate count from Super Tuesday, and, as it turns out, Senator Obama has picked up eight more delegates there. That’s twice as many as Clinton received on her big “blowout” day of March 4th, when, delegate-wise, she won Ohio and, it seems, lost Texas. Update: Just to clarify, I should say Obama picked up four more delegates in CA, which Clinton in turn lost. So Obama +4, Clinton -4, a.k.a. an eight-delegate swing.
Category: California
In the City of Angels.
Heya. Sorry this is going up so late…I spent the evening at the Generation Obama event in Midtown, so my usual prObama take on the debates got even more reinforcement than usual…
First off, it was heartening to watch a surprisingly substantive debate. The Nevada roundtable was too sweet, and the Myrtle Beach slugfest was too sour, but tonight’s much-heralded showdown in Los Angeles actually seemed just right. [Transcript.] Both candidates were able to tease out and discuss notable differences in their policies, particularly on health care, immigration reform, and Iraq, while keeping a civil, friendly tone that didn’t seem as unnaturally forced as back in Vegas.
With all that being said, and to no one’s surprise, I thought Barack Obama came out ahead this evening. (In fact, I agree with Andrew Sullivan — this might’ve been his best debate thus far.) He showed a clear and nuanced command of policy. He made a solid case for his strengths, most notably on the question of judgment (“Right on Day 1.”) He explained well how he’s more electable, particularly against John McCain. He was wry and personable. And — when it came to the Republicans — he was often devastating. (That Romney takedown was too rich.)
Hillary Clinton was also good tonight, but she gave more than a few answers that were real groaners. On immigration reform, her attempt to be Obamaesque by invoking the Statue of Liberty was strange and flat. More problematically, her answer on drivers’ licenses for illegal immigrants made no sense (She’s against licenses for illegals, to protect illegals?) And, worst of all, when given the chance to defuse a zero-sum understanding of the immigrant issue, she instead told a story about an African-American man who blamed Latinos for his job loss, and it was hard not to read an off-putting Bendixen subtext into it.
Most notably, when it came to Iraq in the final third, Clinton was terrible. Rather than just admit she made a mistake in either [a] supporting the war or [b] believing Dubya, she seemed unwilling to concede any possibility of error, and got stuck in an increasingly tortured answer about her position on the AUMF vote. It was unseemly, to say the least, even Dubyaesque. And the more she spun her wheels, the better Obama looked. Update: Apparently, she also butchered the truth about the Levin Amendment.
Still, my general impression is that CNN’s Jeff Toobin basically got the larger chess game right: As a TPM commenter well put it: Hillary Clinton is currently in the lead and is trying to run the four corners until the clock runs out. Barack Obama is surging massively right now and didn’t want to upset that o-mentum unduly. So neither candidate felt they needed to shake up the current paradigm all that much, which helped keep everything friendly.
Instead, Obama wanted to show undecideds that he has presidential gravitas and can policy-wonk as needed. Clinton wanted to staunch her negatives and get the focus back on her rather than Wild Bill. (Which reminds me, no question about Kazakhstan?) In that sense, both candidates accomplished what they came to do.
Now, it’s up to us.
Kennedy Chats Up El Piolín.
“Only two senators marched for immigrant rights on May 1, 2006, one in Washington and the other in Chicago. I marched in Washington and Barack Obama marched in Chicago. He was not afraid to stand up when others wouldn’t.” Ted Kennedy pitches Barack Obama for 20 minutes on the El Piolín radio show, which happens to be the most popular radio show in America. Notes the article: “You simply cannot pay for advertising like that, nor underestimate its impact on the vote next Tuesday particularly in California.”
O-Momentum?
Since the New Hampshire debacle, I’ve been trying to swear off on posting poll information around here. Still, if you’ll forgive one lapse, the trend lines are looking surprisingly good for Senator Obama right now. Recent polls put Obama down 6 nationally (he was down 16 last week), down 6 in Massachusetts (a poll had him down 37 last week), down 12 in New York (a poll had him down 28 a few days ago), and down only 3 in California. Particularly given the proportional allotting of delegates, he’s right in there.
Granted, the political landscape has proven nothing if not volatile of late, none of these polls factor in Edwards’ exit, and there’s a big debate tonight. But, like I said, we definitely seem to be moving in the right direction. Update: Make that down four nationally. Ok…no more polls.
Chronicle of a Win Foretold?
“Clinton, who arrived in the U.S. Senate four years before Obama, has tried to make experience the issue…But if she wants to highlight her White House experience as a defining difference, then it’s only fair to point out that two of the projects she was most deeply involved with produced a debacle (health care) and scandals (fund raising). Especially in recent days, her campaign has shown the sharp elbows that evoke the ugly underside of the Clinton years, and the (Karl Rove inspired) Bush years that succeeded them: the reflex to scorch the Earth, to do what is necessary to vanquish political adversaries … all is justified if you are left standing at the end.
The San Francisco Chronicle endorses Barack Obama for president. “America deserves better than these cycles of vengeance and retribution. Its possibilities are too great, its challenges too daunting, for partisan pettiness.”
Trials by Fire.
I’ve been derelict in posting here the past week, but obviously there’ve been some pretty dismal stories in the news of late, from the fiery swath of destruction visited upon California to the horrifying house fire that claimed seven South Carolinians. To those who’ve lost friends or family (or homes) in the recent conflagrations, my heart goes out to you. (And one bright spot amid the tales of woe, congrats to the 2007 BoSox for their second World Series sweep this decade. The Curse is now assuredly laid to rest.)
Taking Initiatives.
Regarding ballot initiatives, it was a bad night for same-sex marriage and marijuana decriminalization. Still, there’s cause for hope around the country in the six state minimum-wage hikes that passed, as well as the repudiation of the stringent abortion law in South Dakota (Justice Kennedy: take note.) Speaking of the Court, its eminent domain decision of last year took a beating in nine states, although California, Idaho, and Washington thankfully repudiated stronger measures that would effectively hobble any kind of federal land regulation.
The Declaration of Independents.
It’s true in the West, it’s true in the Southwest, it’s even true among the reddest of the red. And, in perhaps the final straw for the GOP this November, a new poll puts independents breaking for the Dems 59%-31%. Yes, y’all, it looks like a wave is coming…(provided, of course, Diebold doesn’t ride to Dubya’s rescue.)
Quake II.
“‘In 1906, San Francisco was the largest city west of the Rockies. We had 400,000 people in the city,’ Eisner said. ‘Today we have 7 million in the Bay Area. And the consequences of a disaster of this magnitude in an urban area are significant.’” On the eve of tomorrow’s centennial of the great San Francisco earthquake, a new study suggests another Big One would mean a Katrina-level disaster for the Bay Area. “Seismologists generally agree that a repeat of a 1906-size earthquake is inevitable, though when and where along the fault are unknown. In 2002, the U.S. Geological Survey reported a 62 percent chance of a magnitude-6.7 earthquake or greater hitting the Bay Area within 30 years.” And, in a related story, historians look for lessons for post-Katrina New Orleans amid the rubble of 1906.
Get the Lead out.
A (belated) follow-up: Last year, I posted here about the efforts by major chemical companies to bury Deceit & Denial, the recent work by public health historians David Rosner and Gerald Markowitz, which found that said companies knowingly obfuscated, downplayed, and generally lied about the fact that some of their products caused cancer. A few weeks ago, the other shoe dropped, when — relying on the documents unearthed by Rosner & Markowitz — a Rhode Island jury found lead paint manufacturers guilty of “public nuisance.” “The verdict on the issue of liability paves the way for a potential damage award of millions of dollars in cleanup and mitigation costs.” And, since then, California has reinstated a class-action case against the lead paint industry, and insurance companies are looking to drop the policies of lead paint manufacturers, since they “didn’t disclose the dangers of lead paint when they purchased their policies.”