But he has taken specific positions on some key issues. He's opposed the Iraq war from the beginning. He was the first senator to introduce a bill calling for specific timing pullouts, and had it passed with veto overridden the troops would be out three months from now. Perhaps he introduced it as a posture knowing it wouldn't be passed, but it framed the discussion positively. He also wants to up the current income cap of 97 grand for social security taxes. And he wants to let the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy die in order to enact the first ever tax cuts aimed at the lower income.

But mostly I support him because of the excitement he's generating with progressive youth - something I've never seen in my lifetime. Something which hasn't been seen in this country since Kennedy. Couched in his vague rhetoric is the proposition long lost in this country that organizing around government can make a difference. His invocation of Reagan's transformative movement was not about Reagan's policies, but specifically he is calling for a paradigm shift that rolls back the cynicism about government (due to the "excesses") which accompanied the "Reagan Revolution." In other words, an Obama election is more than a defeat for conservatism. It would represent a liberal revival. In a way his campaign is more radical than Edwards despite the centrist positions he takes on social issues and his flirtations with DLC and Blue Dog types. What is missing in the other campaigns, even those of Edwards and Kucinich, is the optimism for social change in the following.

Lastly, his election could signify the restoration of the notion that learning and intelligence are virtues rather than vices, and maybe bury at least for the moment the "plain talking" anti-intellectualism which has governed political images for the past couple of decades. He's smart and not ashamed of it. He speaks in complete sentences. He pronounces words correctly and uses them properly. He has wit and a sense of irony. He has depth. And he will trounce any of the Republicans he faces. I'm not sure he can get by the decades evolving Clinton machine. But he'll have my vote.

Proposition 91 - No

The proponents themselves are urging a no vote because the law was passed as Proposition 1A last year. It was a stupid idea then and it hasn't improved with age.

The legislature itself is increasingly moot. With all of the spending mandates in place, the money is all pretty much earmarked according to formulas etched into law at the behest of special interests with the repetitive help of gullible voters. Of course the two types of government expenditures supported by conservatives are military/police and roads for cars. They basically pass laws which deprive government of being able to raise money then they push mandated spending for their pet concerns so their own pet government agendas aren't thwarted by their anti-governmentism.

Legislators have little flexibility to prioritize each budget with the particular needs of a given year. Almost turns me against the referendum system except that it's one of the few democratic institutions in the system.

Proposition 92 - Yes

Another spending mandate - this time for junior colleges. The money would be aimed at lowering tuition to reverse the drop in attendance. It would separate the funding from K-12 schooling. It does not provide for a specific funding source, but simply secures 300 million for the stated purpose.

As I said, I don't like spending mandates, but if the interests pushing prisons and roads are going to get their guarantees, education is going to have it's own. K-12 is protected by prop 98, and this proposition would ensure that the community colleges have something. It's not enough, but it's something.

Proposition 93 - Yes

The proponents are being a little deceptive with this one. It's pretending to be something other than what it is. In fact I was inclined to vote against it until I actually read it. Yes, it does shorten the term limitations for legislative service from 14 to 12 years. I think term limits, dubbed by Barbara Boxer "affirmative action for Republicans," have made a mess of politics in California and deprive rural areas of desperately needed funding because everybody is rushed to seek higher offices and so the population centers get even more priority than they got before. Plus, there is no time for the rural representatives to get themselves into positions where they can secure programs for their constituencies. Our schools have suffered. Our medical services. Everything.

What this does is to allow a legislator to stay in the assembly for the full 12 years (so that they aren't scrambling for a senate position after 6). This may allow some rural representatives to re-establish some priorities for rural areas.

It's not enough. We need to repeal term limits. But it's something.

Propositions 94 through 97 - No

Gaming compacts which would allow for 4 mega-casinos. I supported the establishment of casinos when the propositions first came up. I was all for the tribes pulling money out of the pockets of Nevada's legalized gangsters, though the latter have weaseled their way back in through gaming contracts. I supported the financial source as potential independence for tribes, not to mention economic development to mitigate or even eliminate reservation poverty.

But these things are built with only limited regulation on them in terms of traffic, preservation of rural areas, and the environment. Driving on Highway 20 towards Lakeport at night, one minute you're driving on a dark rural highway and all of the sudden it's like something out of Close Encounters of the Third Kind.

The casinos in question have busted their unions. And they prey on an illness in gambling addiction which has dramatically risen with the proliferation of casinos all over the country.

The draw is the money. They're offering 15% to go into the state coffers and they made a deal with Governor Schwarzenegger which would be in effect but for the deal's opponents having forced it onto the ballot. Some have suggested a higher rate to mitigate some of the evils of the industry. For my part I think we've more than enough of the industry. If these measure are passed, it won't be the end of it.