An interesting dynamic going on in California. Gov. Schwarzenegger just picked Republican State Senator Abel Maldonado to replace recently elected Rep. Garamendi as Lieutenant Governor. Initially this was great news because Dems could win Maldonado's seat and be just one seat away from winning the 2/3 majority needed to essentially govern the state and prevent deeper budget cuts. I'm familiar with Maldonado because when I was out in CA on book tour, he was all over the press as the Olympia Snowe of the state, demanding deal after deal to be the last vote needed to pass the budget- even winning a concession to place two propositions on the ballot. The second- Top Two Primary- has a lot of implications for state elections.
Now, Democratic Senate leaders are balking (the nomination needs to be approved by the Senate) because they think it may give him a leg up on the LG spot- something that Robert Cruickshank at Calitics, and a constituent of Maldonado's, disputes. So many are actually calling for his confirmation to sail through as quickly as possible because getting a 2/3 Dem majority is absolutely critical. On the other hand, I have some friends who sneered at it as the same "as soon as we have 60 Senate Dems all will be well" argument that never comes true.
The last two Presidents we've had were both largely unknown at the national level. They had little experience nationally, either. And in both cases, some seriously mistaken projections were made from their state records. In the case of Bush, this was clearly quite deliberate. The notion of him as "a uniter not a divider" based on his Texas record depended on obscuring several things--not least the relatively conservative nature of many Texas Democrats. In Clinton's case, his ability to get things done with Republican legislators partly depended on the relative weakness of the Arkansas Republican Party, which was a far cry from the well-orchestrated machine that was still being built in DC when he arrived, just two years before Newt Gingrich would become Speaker.
In Obama's case, his slim national experience is still significantly more than either Clinton or Bush had--though Bush, of course, had unelected experience and connections out the wazoo. But he really hasn't made much of a legislative mark in Washington--indeed, no Democrat has during the time he's been there. So it's not surprising that people talk about his record in the Illinois senate. And Obama himself touts his record there, and his ability to work across the aisle.
Naturally, this raises the same question raised by the examples of Bush and Clinton--how realistic is this experience as a precursor to Washington? And how much might it be misleading?
I don't have direct data to answer this question, but I do have some that's suggestive, comparing the 2006 Illinois State Senate with the 2006 California State Senate, and the differences between the two are stark, as you can in the charts provided on the flip...
STATE BLOGS
