• ACALIF_P2
• csmli-1
• stem-1

• ACALIF_P1
• csmli-2
• stem-2

Earlier '08 primary nets few gains for California – so far

A Feb. 5 vote brings candidates to the state, as intended. But fundraising still trumps issues.

By Daniel B. Wood and Ben Arnoldy | Staff writers of The Christian Science Monitor

from the September 6, 2007 edition

Page 1 of 2

Los Angeles and Oakland, Calif. - This week, California will be shining brightly in the 2008 presidential race.

That's because more big-name stars than ever (including Tom Hanks, George Clooney, producer Steven Spielberg, and monied moguls David Geffen and Jeffrey Katzenberg) are expected to attend a celebrity-packed fundraiser for Barack Obama hosted by Oprah Winfrey at her southern California estate this Saturday.

Indeed, ever since the electoral megastate moved its primary up to Feb. 5 to gain more clout in the presidential nomination process, more candidates have been showing up here more often, staying longer, and coming back than any election in the past 30 years, experts say. But in the early going, California is still continuing in its role as ATM for national candidates, most analysts say. The Golden State has yet to become a place where they actually stump, reveal new policy, or cater to California concerns.

"They have been visiting for sure, but only to preach to the faithful, raise money, and leave," says Tony Quinn, coeditor of California Target Book, a nonpartisan analysis of congressional and state legislative races.

Californians are also donating far more money to presidential candidates this election cycle than the last. At this point in the 2004 presidential election, the top four candidates had raised some $10 million in the state, compared with $26 million now. Part of that, however, may be because of the accelerated primary schedule and no incumbent. Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D) of New York is the early front-runner of all the candidates, with $8.7 million raised from California. Senator Obama (D) of Illinois is second with $8.2 million.

Now that is likely to be changing. Because Ms. Winfrey, the billionaire TV diva, has thrown her support behind Obama, all eyes are glued to what kind of influence her fete could have in the coming months.

"This Oprah fundraiser could be one of the more influential in a long time because she is one of the biggest endorsements that Obama has been able to secure, and she is very influential with women and blacks – two of his key constituents," says Larry Sabato, a political scientist at the University of Virginia in Charlottesville. "Her opinion matters a lot more than fellow politicians right now." But he and other analysts are a bit dubious of both the money and influence of Hollywood. "When Feb. 5 finally arrives, few people are going to vote for any of the presidential candidates just because Oprah endorsed one of them," says Robert Stern, president of the Center for Governmental Studies, a nonprofit organization in Los Angeles.

Steven Schier, a political scientist at Carleton College in Minnesota, likes to remind voters that Democratic contributors at California events "tend to be an exotic crowd to many other Americans, which hooks into the broader observation that the money people in both parties are not that representative of most Americans."

Page 1 | 2 | Next Page