It's all about efficiencies

What was done in the East has been done in the West.

The massive cuts implemented this week at Singleton's three L.A. papers - the Daily News, the Breeze and the Press-Telegram - have paved the way for structural changes long sought by Denver.

It's about knocking down walls as much as its about saving money.

Rather than have three papers with full staffs that look to protect their turf, Singleton wants a partnership that operates as a single business entity. If you want to see how it works, look no further than the San Gabriel Valley, where the Star-News, Tribune, Whittier Daily News share revenues, a copy desk, a reporting staff, an executive editor... and just about everything else you can imagine.

In the wake of these cuts, I imagine there will be a further mixing of editorial staff (and probably an overall reduction of editors), more common pages, a centralized copy desk, and the eventual elimination of anything and everything considered to be redundant.

The merger should also do away with the unions, allowing for cheaper hires over the long term.

Resentments will run deep and newsroom morale will drop, but anyone not with the program will be welcome to leave.

To put it another way: These cuts are not a hasty response to a sudden drop in revenues. These cuts are part of a larger reorganization plan that was simply waiting for a downturn to be implemented.

You're no daisy

Hillary Clinton wants to answer the phone.

The economy and you

Want to know more about the housing crisis everyone's talking about? Then list to my show.

The other shoe*

It looks like Dean Singleton has found another hide to cut from.

On Wednesday, it was reported that Daily News Editor Ron Kaye had "persuaded" Singleton to spare 10 reporters in his newsroom. Being the cynic that I am, I predicted the pink slips might simply migrate to another paper and, well, they did. The Torrance Daily Breeze yesterday fired 9 people, including four reporters and, of all things, a Web editor.

The announcement came in the evening as deadline approached.

In the past, the Daily News budget troubles usually meant that the Singleton-owned papers in the San Gabriel Valley (Pasadena Star-News, San Gabriel Valley Tribune, and Whittier Daily News) had to sacrifice their flesh, but they appear to be shielded somewhat by a newly triggered provision in their operating agreement.

However, don't be surprised if the reaper continues his march through the entire Los Angeles Newspaper Group chain.

*Lest I give the wrong impression here, I'm not saying the San Gabriel Valley papers are safe - just safer than in the past. Expects heads to roll everywhere, including there.

Quackenbush is where? Did what?

From the Sacramento Bee's Capitol Alert: Chuck Quackenbush, who resigned as California insurance commissioner in 2000 after accusations of misusing public funds, turned up as a deputy sheriff in Florida. But the once-rising Republican politician is again in the news. After shooting a suspect during an arrest this week, he has been placed on administrative leave with pay pending an internal police investigation.

Read the rest of the story here.

22 skidoo

The news was expected. The Daily News of Los Angeles will eliminate 22 newsroom jobs on Friday. According to this post from LA Observed, Editor Ron Kaye "persuaded" owner Dean Singleton not to cut any deeper, saving 10 jobs that were on the line.

The question is, what did Kaye have to trade to persuade? Will those 10 pink slips find their way to other Singleton newsrooms in Southern California? That's what has always happened in the past. Or are these jobs still on the line pending better revenues or buyouts or salary cuts?

This is part of a continuing strategy to transform the cluster of papers Singleton owns into a single entity. Why preserve the Daily News newsroom when you can use copy from the Daily Breeze and the San Bernardino County Sun to plug the holes?

This is assembly-line journalism ala MediaNews, and it's been a long time in the making. I'm surprised that anyone is still surprised at what is happening at these papers.

Let there be Bass

Shane Goldmacher and Jim Sanders, dogged Capitol reporters for the Sacramento Bee, will report tomorrow that Assemblywoman Karen Bass, D-Los Angeles, has the votes to succeed Fabian Nunez as Speaker of the lower house.

A snippet from the SacBee Capitol Alert: ... Assemblywoman Karen Bass has secured the votes to become the next speaker of the California Assembly, elevating an African American woman to the post for the first time in California history, several Democratic colleagues said Wednesday.

Dan Walters, a columnist for the Bee, columnized that Assemblyman Anthony Portantino, D-La Canada Flintridge, had emerged as the leading contender for the job. I'm still not sure what led him to that conclusion, other than hopefulness. However, it caused Fred Ortega, City Hall reporter for the Pasadena Star-News, to lose faith in me with this entry on his Under the Dome blog.

Here's what I predicted back on Feb. 13.

There will be blood

Sources tell me the Daily News of Los Angeles plans to do more than offer buyouts to newsroom employees, it will bring down the ax. How many heads are on the chopping block? Time will tell. And expect the bad news to trickle down to other MediaNews-owned papers in Southern California.

Debate! Debate! 4

Obama is asked how he can run effectively after being labeled as the "most liberal" Senator in the Senate.

He says he differed from Clinton on only two votes and neither were "liberal" positions.

Next question: What do they know about Putin's handpicked successor?

Clinton knows he is Putin's handpicked successor, but doesn't seem to know his name. Does Obama? (Hint: It's Dmitri Medvedev) Doesn't appear he did.

What do you regret? Words you'd take back?

Clinton says she'd take back her vote to invade Iraq.

Obama says he'd have spoken out against congressional intervention in the Terry Schiavo case.

Now Obama is trying to give a wrap-up speech like Clinton's at the Texas debate. But I didn't hear the end because I'm 10 minutes behind on the speech and my satellite didn't record it.

Debate! Debate! 3

First up after the break: Obama responds to the "all talk, no action" accusation from Clinton. Clinton comes back with the you can't "hope" your way to solving problems. She's a fighter, not a hoper.

Obama responds by saying you can't just fight your way to health care reform.

Will Obama opt out of his public financing pledge? He doesn't exactly say yes, but he means yes.

Will Clinton release her tax return now? She doesn't exactly say no, but she means no. (And will she release her calendar as First Lady? Yes, but so many stumbling blocks...)

Will he reject Minister Farrakhan's support? Can't censor him, but can denounce his statements. What do you say about Rev. Jeremiah Wright's support for Farrakhan? He responds by talking about Israel and its sacrosanct spot in American foreign policy.

Clinton implies that he should go further and reject Farrakhan, not simply denounce him. Obama offers to reject as well.

The audience applauds.

Debate! Debate! 2

Clinton defends her record on creating new jobs (she didn't create as many as she said she would), saying her pledge was based on an Al Gore victory in 2000.

On to foreign policy

Obama uses Iraq to say he has better judgment. Clinton puts forward her extensive experience. She goes on to say he spoke out against the war when he didn't have any responsibility. What will Obama say in response? Does he bring up Cheney? This is an opening for him...

(She keeps talking after she delivers her sharpest jabs to soften the response)

He comes back with a "he facilitated and enabled" George Bush on Iraq. Sounds like he's sharpened his elbows. Talks about going after al Qaeda unilaterally in Pakistan, too, by noting that the Bush administration just did the same.

Will we leave Iraq immediately?

Obama says if the Iraqis tell us to leave we have to leave. But we should build a partnership on the basis that we will implement a phased withdrawal.

Clinton agrees. An impatient Russert interrupts: Will we reinvade if Iraq starts to crumble?

Clinton says he's asking "hypotheticals" and calls for an orderly withdrawal. Now she's looking for a chance to hit Obama, says he's held no subcommittee hearings to try to change course in Afghanistan (cause that's how it's done apparently).

Obama comes back with an answer on Afghanistan, acknowledging now hearings and then laying out why Iraq has hampered our efforts to rally NATO.

Again, this is a good debate and my blog is a poor summary.

Debate! Debate!

Let's get started. Clinton is up first after a clip showing her compliment Obama followed by an attack on Obama. She quickly shifts away from her behavior and starts talking about health care reform.

Clinton: We respect each other, I just don't respect him.

Obama let's the media question Hillary on shenanigans and shifts, as she did, to the issue of health care and probes the "mandate" definition.

Clinton comes back with more talk on health care, attempt in to show she feels, shall we say, an urgent sense of now about the issue... Then she comes back with an accusation that the mailer read as if Republicans and insurers wrote it.

Obama responds by coming back to the mandate. I like this. It's like a debate. "The insurance companies are actually happy to have a mandate..."

She comes back again on the issue... He would be wise to interrupt. No time for being respectful. There he goes... mumbles the word filibuster.

Next subject (16 minutes later, Brian Williams notes) is NAFTA

Clinton segways into a short rant about how she's always asked the first question and makes reference to an SNL skit that nobody watched. Hmm... Does that play in Parma?

She goes on to say NAFTA should be fixed, then uses the Cleveland Plain-Dealer to hit Obama for his criticisms of her about trade.

Obama uses biography in his response, saying he saw firsthand the problems with bad trade agreements. Biography is his asset, one he doesn't use enough.

Papa Tim Russert wants to come back to NAFTA, brings it to Clinton about her record of support for the agreement

Clinton doesn't take the Russert bait on dropping out of NAFTA. It was a dumb question, she had the right answer. Russert continues to press and so she goes back to the Plain-Dealer to push the critique back onto Obama. (Her stance: we'll renegotiate labor and environmental standards with Mexico and Canada).

Now Russert goes to Obama, asks what he'd do.

Obama says Clinton had a good answer and he'd do the same thing. He sounds a little like a vice president. Why would he answer that way? He picks up a little steam toward the end, says the deals protect corporations, not people. Then he starts to trail off again.

Get old, get out

Roger Catlin at the Hartford Courant is honored to have stuck around long enough to be asked to leave.

Speaking power to truth

Sam Zell riles LA Times reporters in Washington, DC by telling them they're too many in number and too exclusive in content. Think like a wire service, he implores (threatens?).

Bureau Chief Doyle McManus hurriedly applied a poultice of strong tea to the wound. We'll see how many veterans bolt in the wake.

Not sure if this is related, but Phil Willon was recently assigned to covers politics - including presidential politics - for the Times and he is based in Riverside, Calif.

Daily shorts

Republicans hurt by deregulation

Alabama is full of coincidences

News is only a small piece of the new news business

Another year I won't be getting a Pulitzer

A politician might have told the truth

The Singleton Way

You reporters need to get over yourselves.

Cause he's gotten over you.

The Washington Times gets with them

The Washington Times is making a few changes. Gay is OK. Gay marriage, too, as long as you're just writing about it. And illegal aliens are now illegal immigrants.

Were this 1987, these stylistic changes would count as progress.

Profitable debt

The credit crisis has done nothing to dampen enthusiasm for Visa's planned to go public offering, which is expected to raise a record $17.1 billion, according to the New York Times.

That follows the success of MasterCard, which is now trading at $200 a share.

Credit cards are us

As the subprime mortgage crisis continues to reveal the weaknesses in our shoddy middle-class economy, more attention is being paid to the financial instrument at the heart of it all: the credit card.

If you want to know how countless families came to believe they could afford houses that they could not afford, and then refinanced these house to fill them with more things they could not afford, look no further than the economic lessons offered by the credit card.

The credit card isn't merely a mechanism with which we buy things. It is a part of the foundation of our economy and a touchstone of our culture.

The credit card has taught generations how to spend. It has altered our sense of value and influenced our understanding of responsibility. It closes the gap between the life we have and the life we want - the life we think we deserve. It is how we keep up with the Joneses; how we mask our poverty; how we keep up with inflation; how we keep realty at bay.

Credit cards prop up countless families. They make attainable that which cannot otherwise be attained. They augment stagnant wages. They reinforce the American ethic of instant gratification with a carefully structured repayment plan that masks the true cost of the bargain.

The devil should be so crafty.

TIME magazine has a short piece about the abusive penalties and fees credit card companies are charging customers these days (and have been for years). Congress, having spent decades giving banks a freer hand, now appears to be rethinking deregulation. But whatever Washington does, it will come too late.

The entire country is approaching its credit limit and the bill has come due. No one is blameless in this transaction - not the banks that made it too easy to get into hock, not the politicians who relied on this false economy to claim economic success, not the credit card holders who knew it was all too good to be true.

But what will we use to pay down our debts, since such a huge portion of our assets are on loan?

The entire nation needs to rethink the value of things and come to grips with how much it really earns. Otherwise someone else is going to buy up all of our debt and, like those credit card companies, start charging such excessive fees and penalties that everything we earn will go to paying them off.

American Idol

Frankly, I'm surprised it took this long for a wave of anti-Barack Obama sites to sprout up on the Internet. I haven't been looking for them, I just assumed they existed.

So what does it mean?

I don't know. Maybe Obama supporters should have stopped suspending their disbelief long ago. Maybe they just couldn't believe he could really win - until now. Maybe this will be a turning point for the candidate, the point where he either grows up or stays in political Neverland.

Whatever it is, we are nearing a cultural crossroads. Obama is unique. Politics in the age of the Internet is unique. How do the two reconcile themselves? Obama is hearkening back to a purer time when a JFK or RFK could move a nation with words. The Internet is a tool to burst the bubble of just such movements. But Obama also taps into something deeper, being black, coming at a moment when the generations most tied to the Internet are looking for something more authentic than the authenticity they find in snarky, Gawker-type deconstructionalism.

Someone smart better be writing books about this.

Sam Zell has ideas

LA Observed's Kevin Roderick listened to Sam Zell speak about newspapers and gives his thoughts here.

In short, the new owner of the LA Times seems disinterested both in words and journalists.

Here's a snippet from Roderick's report: Zell clearly is not the kind of publisher who aspires to greatness and invests in hard, expensive kinds of journalism — risky investigative digging, complex issues that may take weeks or months to research, perhaps even coverage of poor people or less popular sports. It sounds as if the main criteria will be what brings in the most readers. We know what gets high ratings on the Times website — basketball and celebrity photos, with a smattering of hot stories of the moment. "It seems like an awful lot of journalism that's being written is not being read," he said.

Zell got his "start" in business reselling a Playboy he bought for fifty cents for $3. Indeed, he knows what people want. I'm afraid he doesn't much care about what they need.

The best of Times, the worst of Times

Everyone seems to have an opinion about the New York Times expose of John McCain. From what I've read, most of them seem completely backwards (Howard Kurtz at the Washington Post has a good summary of the aftermath).

From my point of view, the story isn't the problem. It's the presentation.

Clearly, even these old allegations of questionable dealings with lobbyists and power brokers are worth rehashing. Unless you're a political junkie, you probably don't know about them. But the story goes further, leading with allegations of a close relationship between McCain and a female lobbyist named Vicki Iseman. According to the story, McCain's own people felt something inappropriate was going on and intervened to push Iseman out of his life.

That's newsworthy. And being newsworthy, it is incumbent upon the Times to ask why. Why did McCain have such a close relationship with this particular lobbyist? Why did his aides become so uncomfortable? Why did they take the extraordinary step of running her off?

The problem, it seems, is that many readers don't like the answers. The Times was left in the unenviable position of publishing these answers, knowing they are bound to offend and open the paper to attack, or hide them out of some rationale of good taste and fairness.

The Times had to publish the information. It's the business they're in. As HST was fond of saying, Buy the ticket, take the ride.

So what went wrong?

The story is full of jerky transitions, it lacks an authoritative voice, and the lede reads more like gawky innuendo than tough-minded reporting. As Gabriel Sherman reports, there was an internal battle over how best to release the beast.

The result is a classic example of journalism by committee - too many cooks and all that.

In the end, I'd guess the more cautious (and senior) editor Bill Keller stripped out much of the reporters' context and background surrounding the allegations of an affair to expose the "facts," thereby leaving the reader to weigh them and decide for him or herself whether they rung true.

The "context and caveats" just aren't there.

Unfortunately, that kind of editing often has the opposite effect of its intent. It leaves the narrative full of holes. Readers - and interested parties - are left to fill those holes in with whatever opinions, theories, conspiracies they have at hand:

Are these gaps a result of shoddy or incomplete reporting? What aren't they telling us? Why did they lead with this allegation of an affair but not make explicit the connection to other parts of the story? Is the Times biased? Why do they hate John McCain? Hate Republicans? Did the paper slip in the bit about the affair just to embarrass McCain? What does Iseman have to do with the Keating Five?

Caution was misinterpreted as coyness. Coyness appears subjective. And subjectivity is an irresponsible motive when these kinds of charges are made.

Uncomfortable facts are like angry badgers. When you catch one, you need to deal with the damn thing yourself, not throw it to the reader and hope for the best.

(Note: David Brooks has an interesting analysis of the men behind McCain - and possibly behind the story.)

Hear more bad news

The endangered California newspaper will be the focus of tonight's "Which Way, LA?" with Warren Olney. Shows starts at 7 p.m. on KCRW 89.9 FM.

Take head, apply to wall. Repeat.

To shore up falling ad revenues, the Orange County Register has developed a three-pronged strategy that basically mimics the one already in use by MediaNews newspapers in California: smaller staff, more community focus, more focus on Web reports, younger staff, etc.

How's that working for MediaNews? The Daily News of Los Angeles, the "flagship" of the Southern California papers is about to be butchered, every reporter and editor working for the MediaNews papers in the Bay Area has been, er, encouraged to take a buy out or face the knife, the San Jose Mercury News has suffered copious cuts, and the remaining California papers are bracing themselves for Bad News, since they aren't turning sufficient profits either.

I'd guess the Register is positioning itself for a possible sale to MediaNews. Otherwise the moves make no sense.

Meantime, the Los Angeles Times appears to be implementing a "change vs. experience" strategy, whereby anyone with experience (meaning older) is asked to take a last-chance buy out to make way for younger, more pliable journalists who will embrace the change of lower pay, fewer benefits and "Web" standards.

Going foreign

Barack Obama beat Hillary Clinton tonight in Wisconsin, according to CNN. John McCain also won.

Interestingly, in his speech tonight McCain picked up the experience vs. change mantra that seems to be failing Clinton. The difference is he wants to make the campaign about foreign policy, and it's a good week to do it, with Cuba, Pakistan and Kosovo in the news - all places where U.S. policy matters, but where no Americans are presently dying.

Clinton, meantime, wants to make the campaign about the economy. She may still gain traction with that approach in Ohio, and possibly Texas as well. But the numbers out of Wisconsin suggest Obama is winning on the issue of the economy.

I wonder if Obama can stay with the change message if foreign affairs - foreign affairs that aren't Afghanistan and Iraq - remain in the headlines?

In my own job I'm already seeing economy fatigue - people tired of talking about it, thinking about it, analyzing it. How is this playing out over the broader electorate?

The starvation diet

Deep cuts are expected at the Daily News of Los Angeles, which already operates with a skeleton reporting and editing staff. If true, there will likely be a trickle down effect, with other Singleton-owned papers in Southern California absorbing some of the pain (i.e., firing reporters).

The news isn't any better, and is possibly worse, in Northern California, where every single Singleton employee was offered a buy-out. "The number of jobs that will be eliminated will be significant," says the memo.

Top managers have been fleeing the Singleton empire in recent months. Now we know why.

This is terrible news for news, of course. But, as a former reporter and editor for this chain, I sympathize deeply with everyone who has weathered the cutbacks, rudderless leadership and low pay of these shrinking newspapers only to find out today that blood and muscle isn't enough. They want to grind your bones, too.

Which Way, LA Times?

Los Angeles Times Publisher David Hiller joins newly appointed Editor Russ Stanton to discuss the paper's future. Hint: More cuts are coming and it's all about the Internet.

The interview follows an update on the recall of 143 million pounds of beef produced at a Chino, CA packing plant under investigation for animal cruelty.

You can listen on 89.9 FM at 7 p.m. tonight, or listen online here.

Texas, Ohio and other states of being

A Republican stronghold concerned with immigration and a state with a rising Democratic electorate frighted by disappearing manufacturing jobs could decide the Democratic presidential primary on March 4.

My guess is that Texas, thick with colleges in the liberal stronghold of Travis County, will be more welcoming to Barack Obama than Ohio, even though Texas has a relatively large number of Latino voters.

Ohio, as this story indicates, appears to be suspicious of audacious hope. Obama's biography and skin color may not play well with struggling white blue-collar voters. Hillary Clinton has experience, race and family ties on her side.

Yes, race still matters in America.

In other news:

John Broder at the New York Times gives a historical overview of how the two parties chose to select their delegates. It's an interesting commentary on the philosophies that drive the two parties. The GOP favors winner-take-all, Democrats proportional allocations.

Writes Broder: In other words, the Republican who kills the buffalo gets all the meat; the Democrat has to crouch around the campfire and share it with his brethren and sistren.

Robert Reich, secretary of labor under Bill Clinton, blogs about the four circles of hell politicians must successfully navigate on their way to the White House. As Maureen Dowd did before him, Reich argues that Obama needs to find his dark side and learn to tell stories of fear to complement the stories of hope. I don't think he's wrong.

Something else to worry about

Gretchen Morgenson, who did some of the first and best reporting on the subprime mortgage meltdown, opens a window onto a multi-trillion dollar credit insurance market that I'm sure you've never heard of, and warns the market could be the next domino in the ongoing credit crisis.

"The market for these securities is enormous. Since 2000, it has ballooned from $900 billion to more than $45.5 trillion — roughly twice the size of the entire United States stock market," she writes.

The very idea that such a huge chunk of our economy rides on this invisible cushion, this "arcane financial instrument," is simply astonishing.

However, there's nothing to worry about as long as the contracts have been properly managed. Given that the largest customers in the market are JPMorgan Chase, Bank of America and Citigroup - three of the biggest players in subprime lending - I feel no fear.

Virtual reality check

The American economy requires a certain suspension of disbelief to operate.

Consider, for example, the credit markets. Unfortunately, the fourth wall has come down and the play has fallen apart.

I've long argued that our economy is based on a false foundation of credit and was bound to implode - perhaps in a series of bubbles, perhaps in a series of recessions.

I'm reminded of the old admonition: Neither a borrower nor a lender be. A good line, but an unrealistic goal in an economy that trades on bets made about the future. But something fundamental needs to change if the middle class - a relatively new invention, I might add - is to survive.

To me, the question isn't what happened to cause this credit crisis. The question is whether this economy can find something other than credit-based schemes to keep the middle afloat? After all, it was ill-advised mortgages that provided the money to millions to pay down other debts and buy the cars, computers and boats that kept our remaining industries singing along, including our biggest industry of all: service.

So what's next? After all the dominoes have fallen, do we set them back up? If not, what's the new strategy? What's the new way?

Just thinking out loud.

Surrender the will

A terribly incisive piece by Tom Junod about the most famous Governor in American history, Arnold Schwarzenegger.

Here's Schwarzenegger on Kabuki: “I’ve always been able to see ahead to the finish line when I’m negotiating,” (Schwarzenegger) told me one day. “It’s always been that way. I see it, and then I want to get there. I get impatient. In business, that’s not a problem. But in politics, a lot of people need to do the Kabuki, the song and dance. They feel cheated if you don’t let them. So now if you want to do the Kabuki, okay, you can do the Kabuki. We’ll get to the finish line eventually. It will just take longer.”

Joe Mathews, author of another incisive work on the guv, the book "The People's Machine," says the story rings true.

Read more from Joe here. He is leaving the LA Times to become a California fellow - a journalist on a stipend - at the New America Foundation.

The capitalism that killed competition

The newspaper industry has let slip the veil of goodwill and donned the bold mantle of cash-starved corporation, more interested in a good ad buy than a good story.

When you hear of cutbacks and restructuring, of innovation editors and cross-promotional opportunities, of New Ways of Doing Things and downward trend lines, of Web hits and multi-platform presentations, of Joint Operating Agreements and MOJOs, think only money.

Whatever bright ideas there are out there for using the Internet to "transform" news, or for saving newsrooms from the vulture-frenzy of mediocre business managers, they are all sublimated by one controlling factor: People who made money want to keep making money.

So how has this played out for newspapers? Poorly. Every experiment in innovation I've seen has been about lowering costs or raising money, not creating a better product. Every promotion I've seen is about getting someone in place who is comfortable with lowering the bar of excellence (and usually incapable of surmounting the bar that was set before him or her) and in tune with the type of innovative experimentation called for above.

Greed and avarice rule the day, and bad ideas masked as good ones follow in their path.

Which brings me to today's news that the Orange County Register, the pink lady of Republican town, is entering into a content-sharing arrangement with Media News, which owns the nearby Daily Breeze and Press-Telegram - and just about every other newspaper in Southern California that isn't the L.A. Times.

If news is merely a commodity, then such a deal makes perfect sense. Why be redundant? If news is held to be doing something more, then the move is a goofy one, since it squashes competition and limits choice. Indeed, the great tool of communication sitting before you seems to encourage sameness more than diversity, but that's a blog entry for another day (welcome to the rhizome!).

In the end, this is all about saving money and selling ads. Cutting the overall number of reporters streamlines the entire operation, allowing for fewer editors, copy editors, paginators, designers, etc. (It also lowers the competition that leads to higher salaries, another good thing if you're worried about that all-important bottom line.) And sharing pages means higher circulation numbers when selling ads.

What do the readers gain? Nothing. Sure, there are a few boring columnists who might be ousted in the deal, and there's an opportunity to redesign some stale pages, but self-immolation isn't the only path to enlightenment. The only benefit I see to succumbing to the advancing blob that is the Media News empire is that it's terribly designed Web sites have some magical power to defeat my pop-up blocker.

I now return to my day job in radio.

Your attention, please

Who in the California Legislature will fail to deliver health care reform next?

Now that voters here have rejected term-limit reforms proposed in Proposition 93, Assembly Speaker Fabian Nunez must step down at the end of the year and the race is on to become his successor.

La Canada-Flintridge Democrat Anthony Portantino tossed the first hat into the ring, officially speaking. At least 10 others have expressed interest.

Portantino seems a long shot at best. He is neither Latino nor from the city of Los Angeles, so I'd guess press coverage is about all he's going to get out of his campaign. Real players usually wait for the press to call them rather than the other way around.

Which brings us to Assemblyman Charles Calderon from the City of Industry. He sent yellow roses to all the women in the lower house to encourage their support. Do you think he paid for them out of his own pocket?

The Sacramento Bee says the front-runner in the race appears to be Assemblywoman Karen Bass. That seems a safe bet, even if she does have to leave office in 2010. Bass hails from Los Angeles, she's black, she serves on the health committee and she's a woman - an irresistible combination for California Democrats in a year in which Nancy Pelosi, Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama are knocking down barriers.

Better yet, the Bee says she has union support.

The Big O*

If the anecdotes and exit polls are correct, Barack Obama has solved the Clinton calculus and is starting to make headway into her base. This should make Mark Penn shiver.

From the New York Times: Mr. Obama’s strength crossed a range of demographic groups, as he gleaned majority support from voters regardless of age, income and education. He was backed by independents and Democrats, liberals, moderates and conservatives.

Another point in Obama's favor is that he appears to have taken a few independent voters who might otherwise have crossed over to help John McCain.

An object in motion tends to stay in motion.

*O-lectible: Morning reports of yesterday's Potomac/Chesapeake primaries confirm Obama did indeed cut heavily into Clinton's base, making big gains with women and Latinos. Whether or not this carries over to states like Texas and Ohio remains to be seen, but at this point the nomination is Obama's to lose.

Romney no Reagan

My old friend Matt Bai at the New York Times (I've talked to him once to get him on our show) has a nice piece today about how lame Mitt Romney's campaign was - and how much lamer still his concession speech was.

The Bai piece has far fewer dangling participles and you can read it here.

Countdown

How long, oh Lord, how long?

Here's how long.

Authentically disingenuous

Mike Huckabee whomped John McCain in Kansas in Saturday's Republican primary.

From the New York Times: Mr. Huckabee won 60 percent of the vote, Mr. McCain 24 percent and Representative Ron Paul of Texas 11 percent. The A.P. reported that Mr. Huckabee picked up all 36 Kansas delegates.

Is that 60 percent a protest vote? If so, McCain has a long way to go to convince voters of what the party leaders have already declared: that the conservative base will rally around the nominee no matter who he is.

The question for McCain is whether this is a last fit thrown by conservatives unhappy with but resigned to his nomination? Or a signal from the base that he better veer rightward if he wants them to back him come November?

Echoes of the past*

We know Hillary Clinton's past. Indeed, we probably feel we know it better than she does. Barack Obama, on the other hand, is largely unknown to us (unless we've read his biographies, which we probably haven't).

That, I think, is the real difference between the two candidates. Not to say they don't campaign with very different styles or that their race/gender don't provide some unique perspective and possibilities. But Obama is a vessel in which we can add our hopes and dreams, whereas Clinton is self-contained - you either like what she brings or you don't.

She's Hollywood formula, a well-trod storyline with a predictable ending (which is why California backed her). He's indie, interesting and captivating with an ending not so easy to predict.

He absorbs your hopes and you hope it changes him. She reflects your hopes and you hope that you like what you see.

He's a puppy, sometimes clumsy but utterly charming and full of qualities that should make him a good dog. She's a dependable older dog, loyal and wise but with peculiarities and prone to bite.

On Saturday, three states decided they liked the puppy best. Today, Maine voters get their says. We'll see if it gets decided in Ohio or Philadelphia or, worse case, by "superdelegates".

*The Washington Post has a story today about the influence of superdelegates in a close race, and it serves as a reminder of just how influential Bill Clinton might be in getting his wife back into the White House.

Mitt out

Mitt "The Mormon" Romney has suspended his run for president, but not before he again invoked the name of Ronald Reagan by comparing his decision to stand down to Reagan's loss in 1976. Thus, he promises a comeback after the Democrats trounce John McCain and make a bungle of a hostage rescue attempt.

I won't hold my breath.

I'll miss Romney, though I'm surprised he lasted this long. In many ways, he was the most genuine of all the candidates, bending to the will of voters at every opportunity, pandering without shame.

Now old-man McCain must climb that steep conservative mountain all alone - unless, of course, his old friend Huck finds a way to tag along (or McCain has a myocardial infarction). But Huck forgot that he needed Romney to stick around just as badly as McCain needed Huck to split the conservative vote. Now Huck's superfluous.

Barack Obama, who continues to revolutionize politics dollar-by-fund-raising-dollar, should be glad at all of this. The wind is at his back and Hillary Clinton has little room to go negative right now, and not a lot of cash on hand. Her only hope is that the writers' strike ends soon and all of Obama's young supporters get locked into the next season of Grey's Anatomy.

My muse

Perhaps it is bad form for a writer to admit that another writer has done a better job of articulating his thoughts than he has himself, but what are you gonna do?

Maureen Dowd has a column today that comes about as close to my thoughts on the Clinton-Obama primary contest as anything I've read - including my own stuff. Hillary Clinton, I believe, suffers from a Nixonian sense of paranoia (I'm less convinced of the Dick Cheney comparison) that she seems to feel is a strength. But to defeat her, Barack Obama will have to make his own journey into darkness. Otherwise, he'll never be able to lead the nation into the light.

Which reminds me of something a friend of mine recently said about being tired of the poetry spouted by Obama in this campaign. She said poetry doesn't belong in politics.

I think she's wrong. Poetry belongs in politics, but it has to come from some place deeper inside the human soul. As with the blues, it has to be earned.

The Results Are In

Very few surprises tonight in the presidential primary. The thing to watch now is how Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton spin their respective wins. Obama did better in the South and in more conservative states. He also won Missouri. I think this gives him an argument to build upon for the upcoming primaries, which are largely in conservative-leaning states such as Texas and Ohio.

Clinton, on the other hand, has big wins in big states, but her map looks something like John Kerry's in 2004. She's the traditional liberal, winning mostly states that a Democrat would be expected to win in a general election. Certainly her delegate count and high-profile victories make for a nice storyline but she lacks a forward-looking narrative.

Saying that, Obama has a long way to go to win the nomination. In other words, today he met his expectations but didn't exceed them. Nothing audacious about that.

And on the Republican side, John McCain beat the shit out of Mitt Romney just about everywhere. He'll drop out soon, I predict.

Today is the day they call Tsunami Tuesday

CNN has posted its first exit poll info, showing that people who are self-described conservatives supported Mitt Romney and Mike Huckabee. Is that even news?

More interesting, Democrats who decided who they wanted to vote for in the last three days picked Obama 47% and Clinton 46%. That's not great news for Obama, who needed those late voters to break his way. That explains the lowered expectations coming out from his campaign.

The New York Giants strategy

Few political strategists not already locked up in an insane asylum would purposely leak a memo like this one without believing it somehow works to their advantage.

In the memo, Barack Obama campaign manager David Plouffe essentially concedes California and the Big Blue coastal states to Clinton. His basic argument is that Obama will be beaten, but will survive to fight another day. Not that inspiring.

The question is, is Plouffe trying to whip up a frenzy within the ranks of Obama supporters? Or trying to ratchet down expectations in hopes that a big win will look like a big surprise? Or is he trying to write the subhead for when Hillary comes out on top tomorrow?: "Hillary wins big on Tsunami Tuesday; Obama still in the hunt."

Or maybe he's doing all three things at once. Indeed, it's always smart to bet the spread when you're not sure your team can rally in the final quarter against the favorite.

One thing is for sure, Obama should have been talking about underdogs all day today after the Giants took down the mighty Patriots.

Master of the card

Another dispatch from deep in credit card country.