Advertise Here

Deliver your message to thousands of readers every day.

Our readers are influential opinion makers - politicians, journalists and activists.

Our latest headlines

About Us

The California Progress Report is published by Frank D. Russo, a longtime observer of and participant in California politics.

About Frank Russo.
About California Progress Report.

Got a news tip? Want to write a guest column? Contact Frank here.

Books

Clinton Draws Huge Enthusiastic Crowd in Oakland; Obama Opens Headquarters

Palpable Enthusiasm for Democrats as Clinton Closes Doubleheader

By Frank D. Russo

You will read in today's papers bits and pieces of what Hillary Clinton said to a crowd of 10,000 to 14,000 in Oakland. There will be stories comparing the size of the crowd to the one that Barack Obama drew in February. There will be more written about the fundraisers that Clinton had in the Napa Valley, Atherton, and Diane Feinstein's home in San Francisco.

We'll tell a bit of that story, along with Clinton's schedule today where she will be appearing at Laney College, also in Oakland, to unveil her urban policy agenda with an emphasis on education and crime.

But there is another story out there in the streets that needs to be told--the excitement that Democrats here in Northern California have about the Presidential race and the opportunity to take back the White House. I arrived early to see the opening of the Barrack Obama headquarters in Oakland--only two or so blocks from where Hillary Clinton spoke a few hours later. I wandered through the crowd there and then over to the Clinton side of the street.

At the dividing line--the heart of Oakland's downtown, at 14th and Broadway, as Josh Richman, the political reporter for the Oakland Tribune crossed the street, there were Clinton and Obama supporters with signs and campaign regalia standing next to each other peacefully shouting out to those who were already arriving for the Clinton rally. Richman interviewed them, and they began debating each other with great passion. He later joked that he had done what the press is good at--taking a peaceful situation and turning it into a battle.

I talked with these kids--college kids--and they articulated solid reasons why they were supporting different candidates. For Stuart Balmel, Campus Director of the Stanford Democrats, Hillary Clinton "can hit the ground running and get things done." The young woman standing beside him, a student from the University of California at Berkeley with clipboard in hand, gave him a ribbing for being from Stanford and described Clinton as "the most experienced and realistic of all the candidates."

Next to them, Jorge Contreras, a college student in San Jose was equally enthusiastic for Obama. He had just returned from Nevada where he volunteered to help out with that state's early caucus. He cited a change of foreign policy and the need for "a fresh face and fresh ideas" as his reasons for supporting Obama and said: "There's so many youth for Obama. I've never a group of young people work so hard in a campaign before."

Both of these supporters and everyone else in the two crowds that I talked with had no hesitation in saying that they will be there in the Fall of 2008 when the general election takes place for the presidency, working and supporting the Democratic candidate. This, even though after Richman and I had started a bit of a row over the Iraq War between the two camps. As I walked away, I heard Balmel saying to Contreras "Grassroots support, yes. 18 point lead, no." referencing where the polls show the race to be--with Clinton having a substantial lead.

I don't know how many campaigns Mr. Contreras in his early twenties has seen. But I can say as one who has set up and run a half a dozen Democratic headquarters in Oakland in the 80's and 90's and followed politics for 40 years, it is unusual to have so much activity and support for Democratic candidates so early in the process. All the signs and indicia were there--the folks with clipboards registering voters, others signing up volunteers, merchandise being sold--T shirts, bumper strips, and buttons--and I even saw a dollar bill--yes a one dollar bill--exchanging hands at a table in the picture here, reminding me of "Dollars for Democrats.".

The Clinton campaign was very good about taking names and keeping records. One person who just wanted to purchase a shirt told me she was asked for her name, address, and other information. I don't know if she will be going in to the data base of contributors. While there were the other fundraisers for much larger dollars--and many eyes are upon what the candidates raised as yesterday was the end of the quarter for reporting purposes--there clearly was a drive on for volunteers.

Brent Messenger, the Regional Field Director for Northern California for Obama, who opened the Oakland office, told me that the campaign has organizers in each and every one of California's 53 Congressional Districts, and that the campaign has a list of over 100,000 volunteers in the state.

For Californians used to having primaries in June, you have to calibrate your calendar to realize how early all of this is. We are still a little over 4 months away from the February 5, 2008 primary election. If we had our primary in June, today's date would be the equivalent of a day in late January or early February. Usually at this part of the calendar, there isn't much activity in California--only a few diehards are involved, and the attention is all on New Hampshire and other states.

Clearly California's move of the primary has had an impact. The candidates come to raise money, for sure. The events, such as this "block party 44" (the next President will be the 44th for the nation) is obviously designed to draw as much media attention as possible--and so was the opening of Obama's headquarters the same day. But there's something in the air here--and it bodes well for November, now that the Republican attempt to change the Electoral College right before the election has fallen through.

At the Clinton event, there was an impressive display of California's elected from Senator Diane Feinstein, hugging Member of Congress Barbara Lee (the sole vote against the authorization to go to war in 2001), to Bill Lockyer, the state's Treasurer and possible candidate for Governor, to San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom, introduced as "Governor Newsom" by Clinton as everyone laughed, and State Senate President pro Tem Don Perata, who in self deprecation before Clinton arrived, acknowledged to the crowd that they had not come to see him. Sandre Swanson, who worked for Lee and for Oakland Mayor Ron Dellums when he was a Member of Congress, emceed the event along with former State Senator Jackie Speier.

Clinton had the crowd roaring with punch lines from what is probably her standard stump speech. Listening to her, you could see the message woven together of change and experience, a theme her campaign is using to demarcate herself from Senator Obama. But what really struck me in this speech were the specifics about California--for instance that we use a lot less energy per capita than other states (say Texas) and on issues near and dear to many Californians, for instance global warming.

Clinton, with the bulk of the elected Democrats in the state on her bandwagon, clearly has state officials briefing her and her campaign on these issues and she is tuned in to these. You would not have this if the election date had not been moved up and California considered important for our vote and not just our money.

Clinton started out referencing the fact that she would be the first woman elected President. As I looked out across the crowd, seeing kids perched on their parents shoulders, and watching the faces of those nearby, there was rapt attention. Many speeches have been given here. In the last days of the 1996 election, Bill Clinton, running for reelection, appeared not more than 200 feet away, and spoke to a much smaller crowd. I couldn't help but think that this is history in the making.

Clinton's event was elegantly staged with an eye towards the photographs and television shots and ran like clockwork (late as all of these events do). No detail was left undone. It was professional and impressive, and even though 3,000 of the crowd up front had paid $20 for the "block party," it retained a very large grassroots and Bay Area feel to it.

Depending on what happens in Iowa, New Hampshire, and the earlier states, where John Edwards has his hopes set, this could be a very interesting three way race for the Presidency. There' s a lot of grassroots support to go around and solid in state organizations being built by all three of these candidates. Clinton clearly has the advantage. Despite attempts to paint her election as a foregone conclusion--it is still early. But the train may be leaving the station for the long haul.

Here is some of what Clinton had to say:

On Foreign Policy

"You cannot be a leader if no one is following. The era of cowboy diplomacy is over."

She said she would "like to restart the 21st Century and undo the damage that has been done."

"I want to start by setting a goal of restoring America's leadership in the world, something that has been damaged n the last six and a half years."

"We can look around and see we have alienated our friends and allies."

On Herself

"I believe I have the experience and the qualifications to become President."

"Change is just a word if you don't have the strength and experience to make it happen"

"I believe I know how to find common ground. But I do know how to stand my ground. And I think we need more of that in our next President."

On Government

"I know we can do it if we reform our government so it works again. Enough of the cronyism. Enough of the no bid contracts."

"Let's end outsourcing our government to companies like Blackwater and h old the contractor accountable."

On Health Care

"If you have insurance and if you like what you have, you keep it. But if you're one of the 47 million Americans without insurance or one of the millions more who has insurance -- except that when you really need it, your insurance company tells your doctor, 'Just kidding' -- you're going to have more choices."

"We're going to tell insurance companies they cannot turn anybody away. They cannot disqualify people for pre-existing conditions. They're going to have to start taking care of people if they want to make any money."

A lot more was said, but there was a lot going on with the people who had come out on a California Sunday to watch, observe, and commune with families and others. And that's a story that needs to be told.

Posted on October 01, 2007

Comments

Experience???? More like she has the connections. Hillary is much too insulating. We don't need that. Obama has the experience we need. President of Harvard Law Review - brought opposing ideologies together for consensus. 8 years, State Legislature again his tenure is most noted for bringing representatives together for change. He was a Civil Rights attorney, a Constitutional Law Professor. He opposed and spoke out against the war before it was waged.
He's younger than JFK and Theodore Roosevelt were before being elected. Lincoln had 8 years in the Illinois State Legislature as well. Lincoln then had 2 years as a congressman, dropped out. That's it. That's all he had before becoming President.
Obama has more experience than Hillary. He does not take Lobbyist money. He does not pander. He does not polarize. Please don't be duped. Rupert Murdoch along with the other media conglomerates support her. Look into her connections with Glover Parks. We need change. Her rhetoric is unworthy.

Posted by: johnnyraygun at October 1, 2007 05:02 PM

Sorry I meant to say Roosevelt and JFK were younger than him... Next time I'll read what I write before I post.

Posted by: johnnyraygun at October 1, 2007 05:10 PM

ON CLINTON RALLY, SEPT 30, 2007

No mention of the Jesus-ification of the rally? Picture: Gavin quoting the bible, a string of reverends, A GROUP PRAYER for 14,000 people, and 3 gospel numbers from the Glide choir. Then the leader of Glide publicly endorsed Clinton. (I think that should be grounds for revoking tax-exempt status, just as I thought evangelicals preaching for Bush should have lost theirs.) There we stood, my Jewish friend and I, (I being poetically a pagan and literally an atheist) about to puke. It was really insulting.

Last election, the Dems tried to "out-macho" the Republicans and it was a disaster. Are they going to be foolish enough to try to "out-Christian" them this time, and totally disgust their base? (Clinton has already done plenty to alienate us.) The tangling of church and state is unacceptable for the Republicans, and it is unacceptable for the Democrats.

And if the Dems find it so necessary to prove their "morality" in terms of spirituality, then at least be true to Democratic ideals of inclusion, pluralism and diversity by acknowledging ALL traditions: Christian, Jewish, Muslim, Hindu, Buddhist, Wiccan, Yoruba, Native American, Santeria, etc. etc. etc.

[Of course, I personally think they can play the "morality" card just fine in purely secular ways, as Gore has done in his framing of climate change.]

And as well as I am ranting, WHATUP with all the "Mrs. President" t-shirts? Back in my preppy, conservative school district in PA, we learned way back in 1st, 2nd and 3rd grade language arts (mid-1970s) that "Mrs." would become obsolete by the 1980s because it was a sexual double standard in itself, and it implied a sleugh of other sexual double standards about the hunter and the hunted. If Clinton wants to talk about "change" and "the future" and "restarting the 21st Century," she could start with some strong symbology by dropping the "Mrs." bit and making sure any authorized t-shirt vendors do, too! EEEEEEEK!

I have been on the fence, and the rally tipped me into the Obama supporter camp.

I will say, however, that Clinton has really honed her orator skills. She has an amazing tone and command of cadence. She really knows how to speak in very simple terms without sounding like she was talking down to anyone. Her tone was one of empowering all to rise to their potential as smart citizens. Especially after listening to a man who has not even mastered his native tongue for the past 6.5 years, her talent for public speaking was truly impressive.

Posted by: IsleofSkye at October 1, 2007 07:40 PM

Simply put: Obama is the man. what else can i, or anyone say, truthfully?

Posted by: bigups at October 1, 2007 08:50 PM

We will never vote for Mrs. Clinton. We can not believe what she says nor trust her. She is a corrupt woman that only wants to go back to the White House to help her friends, interest groups, and corporations, but never people like us. She has already had a chance to do something good for this country and its people. She never did. The world fears her as much as we do. If she nominated, we will vote republican. It will be better to have another republican president than her. She will be the worse choice for any well informed voter.

Posted by: Jane at October 1, 2007 08:58 PM

Nice HRC propaganda Frank.
You should be ashamed of yourself.
Be a journalist and not a HRC puppet.
The people of this great country deserve more than what she has to offer.

Go Barack!!!

Posted by: Joe at October 1, 2007 09:46 PM

Funny how there was virtually no press on Obama's 24,000 strong rally in New York City. Now Hillary gets about 10,000 with all her guns blazing, and yet tons of Obama supporters are there -- when Obama is across the country.

I agree that history will be made...by President Barack Obama.

Posted by: Trish at October 1, 2007 10:02 PM

Frank, it's fairly absurd to suggest that California matters based on anecdotal data of one afternoon in Oakland. If you look at the breadth of the campaign, here are the number of events held by all the candidates in total this year:

Iowa: 1,240
New Hampshire: 571
South Carolina: 268
California: 238
D.C.: 174
Florida: 146
Nevada: 111
New York: 103
Texas: 93
Illinois: 73
Michigan: 55
Virginia: 38
Georgia: 37
Pennsylvania: 37
Massachusetts: 36

More trips to Iowa and New Hampshire than every other state and territory, combined. And practically every California trip is combined with a fundraising trip. When California moved up their primary, I was adamant in saying that this move would do nothing but enhance the power of Iowa and New Hampshire. And that's exactly what's happening. By putting this giant electoral prize on February 5, close to the early states, you make it imperative for candidates to be in front early to have any chance to win the nomination. Any strategy to tread water until Super Tuesday will fail, and by the looks of the appearance schedule all of the candidates know it.

Furthermore, this June primary with no Presidential race and no statewide candidates on the ballot will almost surely have a very low turnout, and Republican dirty tricksters are falling all over each other to take advantage of that, with plenty of nefarious initiatives. Was it worth it? Did everyone get what they wanted?

Posted by: dday at October 1, 2007 11:00 PM

Dave: I know you've been dead set against the primary move since it was first proposed and have seen it as primarily a move for term limits or some other folly.

My disagreement with you on this one is not just based on anecdotal evidence, but also based on many years of following politics in California, having been involved in many Presidential primary campaigns myself. I will grant you that there are many more events in some of the even earlier primary states, and appreciate the statistics that you have included in your comment. But look at those numbers. California is 4th in the number of visits at this stage. Without the early primary we'd be much further down the list--except for purely fundraising trips.

But I can tell you that it is unusual to have the candidates coming for events aimed at communicating to California voters this early--even if there are fundraisers attached, and even if those events are done to attract the media, which is the way that any campaigning in California has to be largely based these days.

I walked through the crowds, naturally much larger at the Clinton event since she was there than the Obama crowd, but I saw a lot of activity at the grassroots at both. I remember the Obama rally in Oakland and reported in March about the 500 volunteers working to get the event ready and ensure a crowd. And I'm fairly certain that there were even more people here when Obama spoke. Mind you--that was almost 11 months before the primary. Obama has his headquarters set up here for Northern California and will be opening his LA office for Southern California in a couple of weeks. They've got folks in every Congressional District in California, and a list of 100,000 volunteers--even if that list contains many who will never really volunteer in the campaign.

John Edwards was also out here in March speaking to UC Berkeley students.

So, it's not just this one event that has me feeling good about what has come about due to the primary date change. And I'd be willing to bet you a steak dinner that we wouldn't have half as many of these large public candidate events by this time if we still had our presidential primary in June.

There is a real problem here for the June election. That's for sure. There needs to be a national plan for the primaries. If the nominee is apparent in February, that makes for a very long general campaign.

But given the rush of other states to move their dates up, we'd be the caboose--usually irrelevant--with the exception of the 1972 primary election where we went for McGovern with the unit rule.

So, I've got to differ with you on this one. But appreciate your comment and love the stuff you write.

Posted by: Frank D. Russo at October 1, 2007 11:43 PM

If everyone in New Hampshire has watched this past debate... Hillary should go down.

She was bitter, and cold, and nasty-sounding. Her message of experience comes of as crochety and exasperated... does no one else see that? She seems jaded and narrow-eyed... unwilling to be innovative. She says she has experience. I think its now been reduced to bile and greif.

Vote Obama America

Posted by: Mary at January 6, 2008 01:21 AM

America like stem cells truly needs fresh and vital energy to move this country forward. Someone said she'll vote for Hellary because she "can hit the ground running." That's what we're afraid of; that she'll hit the ground running and then fall backwards into the ditch America needs so badly to pull herself out of.
America needs newness of life; it needs Obama to be right as rain.

Posted by: B Love Azzan at January 25, 2008 11:06 AM

Get Email Updates

Want the California Progress Report by email? Once a week, we'll send you the latest and greatest headlines.

Stat tracker