And those are some of the kinder phrases.

But say what they will, when decades from now the final chapters are written about this period of history one name will certainly top the list of the most influential and powerful.

That would be Nancy Pelosi - the indefatigable Speaker of the House and part-time San Francisco resident who practically single-handedly steered the giant health reform bill to enactment despite the political knives thrown at her from every direction.

Even when the White House showed signs of wavering, particularly as some key Senate Republicans who feigned early support beat a hasty retreat, Pelosi stood firm and worked feverishly to build and hold the fragile coalition among her rancorous members that would easily have split apart under weaker leadership.

The complexities of navigating a piece of legislation of this magnitude through the treacherous shoals of numerous committee hearings, public debate, strategy sessions, ferocious lobbying against the bill and final reconciliation with a balky Senate cannot be adequately described by those who were not witness.

So monumental is this feat alone that Pelosi's trail-blazing election as the nation's 60th and first-ever female speaker is almost forgotten.

Long before passage was assured, Rep. Lynn Woolsey, D-Petaluma, exclaimed, "I've never seen anything like her."

In the annals of past speakers which include the imperious Joseph Cannon (1903-11), the avuncular Thomas "Tip" O'Neill (1977-87), and Sam Rayburn, (1940-196l), perhaps the most powerful to ever hold the post, Pelosi may ultimately surpass all.

The health bill is only one of a half-dozen transformative pieces of legislation that have passed during her watch.

The Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act arguably invoked the most important financial regulatory reforms since the 1930s.

She pushed through the first increase in the minimum wage in a decade and marshaled the votes for the $787 billion federal stimulus plan that is the bulwark of the administration's struggle to turn around the sick economy.

As early as 2008, Pelosi gained passage of the pay equity bill making it easier for female employees to sue their employers. It awaits senate approval.

In July, the house passed major energy legislation while the senate has dithered and ducked in what has become a familiar ritual given its deeply entrenched partisanship that has grown only worse as the president's job rating has plummeted.

With her legislative mastery, Pelosi has not only assumed the role as President Obama's most important ally, but she has essentially become a de facto member of the president's team ranking perhaps only second to Rahm Emanuel, the chief of staff, as key advisor on public policy.

While Pelosi was irritated by White House Press Secretary, Robert Gibbs' unvarnished comment last month that the Democrats could lose control of the House, there is no evidence this flap has caused any rift between the still-in-training president and the battle-tested speaker who know they must work together even more closely as the November elections draw near.

While Obama's future remains highly uncertain, Pelosi has already ensured her place in history.

That growth follows a national trend coming mainly at the expense of mainline GOP voters increasingly at odds with others in their party whose politics are much farther right.

Some have joined the Tea Party, whose actual strength is not yet measureable in Marin, and whose followers will most likely cast Republican ballots in November, raising speculation that desertions may not matter that much.

But the complications are already evident as seen in the disarray among top county Republicans who decided to oust Sashi McEntee as their party leader for publicly supporting Proposition 14 (the open primaries measure) which carried statewide and was endorsed by the Republican governor.

This does not seem to trouble Bob Stephens of San Rafael, who has the unenviable task of trying to defeat popular incumbent, Democratic Assemblyman Jared Huffman.

Stephens, a Bay Area TV sales executive for 23 years, believes the internal warfare is something that is now behind the local GOP.

"There's only one thing between now and November," says Stephens, "and that's winning the election."

The last Republican to crack the district's Democratic stranglehold was Bill Filante, a Marin physician who served in the Assembly for 14 years before losing his bid for a congressional seat in 1992 to Lynn Woolsey.

There are many attractive Republican officeholders in Marin. However, since city council and supervisorial races are nonpartisan, opportunities to develop party visibility and voter appeal at the grassroots levels is basically meaningless if this does not translate into electoral clout for the higher offices.

Despite the Democrat's lop-sided majorities in Marin and Sonoma, Stephens thinks public disgust with the machinations in Sacramento, combined with mounting anti-incumbent sentiment and bleeding unemployment figures, are opening the door for new leadership.

Stephens discounts gubernatorial candidate Meg Whitman's lack of any government know-how declaring, "If she wins, she will make changes. With Jerry Brown there will be no difference at all."

Taking up a theme that both Whitman and Brown have begun addressing, Stephens believes the bloated pension plans and what some describe as obscene public employee benefit packages are the No. 1 issue.

If elected, Stephens says he would call for overhaul of the pension system, replacing it with an assigned-benefit contributions plan, and extending the vesting period and retirement age.

He slams the just-announced plan by Assembly Democrats to erase the state's $19 billion deficit by raising taxes. He says it is as a job-killer for business. "This is the goose that lays the golden egg and they are squeezing it dry," thunders Stephens.

"Huffman and that crowd are just picking up leaves while the whole forest is burning down."

Undaunted by his first run for public office and total lack of government experience, Stephens proclaims, "What's important is leadership skills which I exercised throughout my business career. My newness is exactly the reason to vote for me."

I also happen to think we elect representatives to make the tough calls and to exercise leadership. This theory of derivative power has generally served us well for over two centuries, notwithstanding some notable abuses and even egregious ones from time to time.

In California - with its free-wheeling frontier spirit and a penchant for political unorthodoxy - independence of mind and action are deeply ingrained in the collective psyche. This has given us both cutting-edge technologies that are envied around the globe as well as little discipline in how we manage the affairs of government.

In Sacramento, when caught in irreconcilable policy dilemmas such as the perennial budget debacle, the preferred option is to defer action as long as possible and react only when the problem can no longer be ignored. This typically results in watered-down compromises that offer some political cover but few solutions.

Out of frustration, voters have responded increasingly by taking matters into their own hands through ballot initiatives whose unintended consequences are often worse than the problems they are designed to cure.

Term limits, super-majority voting requirements, the "Three Strikes" rule, and property tax controls are just a few examples of legislating by public vote that have thrown the state into fiscal upheaval because of contradictory laws and regulations that the courts must then sort out.

In Marin, the long-running debate over whether to embrace desalination or not raises the question of exactly how much more public input and how many additional studies are needed before the water board comes to closure.

Nearly eight years ago, the board starting taking a hard look at how best to assure future water supplies before the next drought hits, and voted to consider a desalination alternative. It is still in consideration mode.

In 2005, the pilot plant demonstration offered compelling evidence that bay water could be made safe, clean and drinkable. These conclusions were backed up by a fully vetted Environmental Impact Report and public hearings.

Inevitably these findings are being challenged by opponents invoking suspect science. Their minds have been long made up and they will resist the only idea so far put forward with any chance of guaranteeing our long-term water supply.

The radical environmentalist wing was joined by the county's ever-vigilant tax watchdogs who have dismissed desalination as too pricey at any cost. The anti-desal crowd have convinced themselves that better conservation alone is a sufficient remedy even after extensive research says otherwise.

Whether the board agrees to call for a referendum on the issue, as it is being pressured to do, or forces a November election, there is strong likelihood the naysayers will prevail either way, given recession-driven sentiment against new expenditures, alarmist misinformation, and near-record rainfalls the past year.

Asking for voter approval at every step would be the perfect pretext for more delay while sparing board members, four of whom face re-election next year, the need to make the tough policy call.

Three years ago a couple of ambitious and remarkably street-savvy 21-year olds fresh out of college decided to do something about this and founded SAVE-- the Student Association for Voter Empowerment - and it is beginning to change the nature of political discourse in America.

The organization's architect-- Matthew Segal is an alumnus of tiny Kenyon College in Ohio which it so happens this writer also attended.

SAVE'S goal is quite simple: Bring young Americans into the political process by removing barriers to political participation and encouraging youth-led policy solutions.

Its approach is entirely nonpartisan and the aim is to encourage incoming students to register to vote as soon as they arrive and to remain engaged.

The Student Voter Act (H.R. 1729), which SAVE conceived, requires colleges and universities to offer voter registration opportunities when students sign up for classes. It has bipartisan support and chances for House passage look promising.

Already the organization boasts a network exceeding 10,000 members with over 40 college chapters in 15 different states.

Earlier this year, Segal was the only young leader invited to the White House for the President's Job Summit. Both he and his colleague, Jarrett Moreno, meet regularly with congressional and civic leaders and have testified on ways of increasing economic opportunities for young people.

Segal calls SAVE "one of the few critical advocacy vehicles for our generation." The idea he says is to change the national mindset from one that still views young voters as "more likely to be asked to knock on doors, rebuild homes and tutor in classrooms than for ideas, input and judgment."

SAVE is now being invited to the table as national and local policy is being developed and getting attention in powerful circles. It co-founded the "80 Million Strong Coalition" consisting of 20 prominent youth groups including the Roosevelt Institute Campus Network, Mobilize.org, the Hip Hop Caucus, Rock the Vote, Voto Latino and the U.S. Student Association.

Its board and supporters roster runs the breadth of the cultural spectrum: Ed Rensi (former president and CEO of McDonald's); Eleanor Clift (Newsweek); Lee Hamilton (former Indiana Congressman), Elan Blutinger (Hotels.com) and Craig Newmark (Craigslist).

Issues being pushed range from green jobs, infrastructure innovation and cyber security, to preventative health care, global business and the ailing educational system.

One of its most-promising efforts is a jobs-creating bill that has passed the House and establishes a unit within the Small Business Administration to provide micro-loans and training for young entrepreneurs.

Fresh from appearances on the BBC, NPR, FOX and Friends and CNN Newsroom, the well-travelled duo dropped by the Bay Area last week to meet with prospective benefactors including several in Marin.

"We've been operating on a shoestring budget," said Moreno. They are drawing "modest salaries" but hopeful the fledgling nonprofit will continue to bring in needed contributions.

"If we are going to be responsible for our nation's future, then we need some say in it," says Segal. He gets no argument here.

The voters, already suspicious of corporate posturing, thought otherwise, defeating Proposition 16 and sparing municipalities the need to muster two-thirds voter approval to explore alternative power sources.

In Marin, led by fierce resistance from the growing chorus of "greenies," Proposition 16 went down to thumping defeat, with 61 percent of voters rejecting PG&E's proposal.

More perplexingly, Proposition 15 also lost big after attracting only miniscule opposition. The appropriately named Fair Elections Act was a modest attempt to remove the ban on public financing for Secretary of State candidates beginning in 2014.

The obvious opponents were lobbyists who would have incurred assessments to finance it. Most elected officials, no doubt uncomfortable if tagged as pawns of special interest groups but leery of alienating their campaign contributors, stayed mute.

This was another blow to meaningful campaign finance reform.

Here also Marin bucked the statewide trend, voting for reform by a big margin.

In the marquee race for county supervisor in San Rafael, dollars seem to have made a difference with the incumbent, Susan Adams, spending a record-breaking $153,000 - enough to narrowly defeat her hard-charging challenger, former Assemblywoman Kerry Mazzoni, who spent less than half.

But this race hardly compares to the financial blitzkrieg mounted by Republican gubernatorial hopeful and business magnate, Meg Whitman, whose $71 million spending orgy in trouncing her nearest rival, millionaire Insurance Commissioner Steve Poizner, gives new meaning to the phrase "buying elections."

How this will translate into credible calls for economic reform in a deficit-ridden state reeling from job layoffs, bank bailouts and voter disgust over corporate greed remains to be seen.

Brown, a symbol of frugality who drove a Plymouth and refused to live in the governor's mansion during his first stint, will need to convince voters his insider knowledge and experience in the job along, with a willingness to challenge convention, makes him the better choice in troubled times.

Whitman will try to portray him as too old, too out of touch and co-opted by the same public employee unions and liberal free-spenders that have repeatedly brought the state to the brink of ruin.

Brown will argue that she is just a reincarnation of the present administration, which has failed to solve any of the critical problems, with even less understanding of how to fix them and someone who suddenly acquired a taste for public service after not voting for 28 years.

As one who nimbly maneuvered to become Oakland mayor and then attorney general, Brown must now perform the difficult feat of transforming himself from Establishment player to avowed enemy of the status quo.

Whitman, a total newcomer to politics, will try to present herself as the fresh face with a personal fortune leaving her beholden to none - much of which she is prepared to spend to achieve victory.

The contrasts between the two could not be starker. An entire nation will be watching, and especially the guy in the White House.

But the cheery make-believe models of our youth have little resemblance to the hardened take-no-prisoners approaches that typify real world political campaigns.

In the pressure cooker of today's money-fueled elections, those who pull in the most contributions can have a decisive edge, and cleverly designed mailers spewing false and malicious content with no chance for rebuttal can turn the tide.

The phrase dirty tricks, invented to characterize unethical or illegal campaign activities, did not appear in the dictionary until 1972, when the Watergate affair gave it special meaning.

Now, it is embedded in our political culture.

But let's be fair. Such chicanery is as American as apple pie: In his first campaign for president in the 1790s, Thomas Jefferson hired the journalist and pamphleteer, James Thomas Callender, to slander his opponent, Alexander Hamilton.

In the eyes of history, which places Jefferson in the top pantheon of the nation's greatest leaders, his reputation does not appear to have suffered any for this malfeasance.

Still, with the growing acceptance of such abuses in what has become standard practice, the voters must constantly fight through an impenetrable haze of sleaze to get at the truth, and the most-qualified candidates may not always win.

This could once again hold true next Tuesday when several contests could turn on the voter's belief in the credibility of last-minute ads and mailers drummed up by invisible consultants driven by only one motive - the urge to win at whatever cost.

While we hear the public decrying foul play, ask any campaign advisor and you are told that negative advertising gets attention and turns on as many voters as it turns off. If there is a solid body of evidence to counter that finding, it has yet to be revealed.

The District 1 supervisorial race will once again test that premise. The opponents have been, for most part, cordial in their exchanges.

In the heated clash between Susan Adams and Kerry Mazzoni, the nasty stuff is coming from their supporters who are trading accusations while the real heavy lifting is being done by independent committees such as the SEIU United Healthcare Workers PAC, which has poured in an astonishing $100,000 to defeat Mazzoni with a flurry of mailers.

With no limitations on what these committees can spend, providing there is full disclosure, the SEIU has met its burden under the county's newly minted reform law.

Will the voters be able to see beyond the dirty tricks and hyperbolic mailers? We will find out Tuesday.

We heard encouraging presentations last week both from California Labor Secretary Victoria Bradshaw, and the state's chief economist, Howard Roth.

The interest in spurring clean technology as a promising driver for new growth took on special meaning starting in December 2007 - generally regarded as the month when the "Great Recession" began.

As the manufacturing sector led a steep decline, triggering a non-stop cycle of unemployment and l.3 million lost jobs in the state - nearly twice the number of those without work before the recession hit - we have been scrambling to repair the damage.

Amid all the grim news about the hemorrhaging budget, the decline in tax revenues and under-performing sectors of the economy, there may be a few silver linings.

Even before the Obama Administration signaled its intentions to push ahead with sweeping environmental and energy reforms and global climate initiatives that may dramatically alter the nation's physical and industrial landscape, the Schwarzenegger team was drafting legislation to reduce greenhouse gas emissions in cars and factories.

A whopping 60 percent of the state's venture capital alrady has been invested in green technology, which is more than any other state, and 20 percent of green jobs are reportedly in the ailing manufacturing sector.

To maintain its competitive edge, the state will soon unveil an ambitious program in collaboration with the U.S. departments of energy and labor to inject millions more in federal dollars into clean tech through a business-led coalition. This coalition will partner with community colleges and local Workforce Investment Boards which operate in Marin and 48 other counties.

The idea is to take public/private partnerships that have been tested and have succeeded in Pennsylvania, Illinois and other states, but less so here, to the next level.

The goal is to begin moving the unemployed as rapidly as possible into solar, wind, biofuel and clean tech jobs that can produce quicker turnaround in job generation and financial stimulus than hi-tech and bio-tech, which can take many years and a continuous infusion of new capital before there are viable results.

Those qualifying for "challenge grants," which can be as much as $4 million, will have to demonstrate that they have jobs ready to fill.

Most of the $30 million of the so-called Governor's Workforce Investment Act has already been directed to youth, veterans and dislocated workers. Reports from around the state indicate those workers are having positive impacts.

The Clean Energy Training Program - another WIB priority - is the largest of its kind in the nation, having drawn 5,600 participants through a competitive process during its first phase.

Marin is a clean energy-conscious community and it should not escape the notice of decision makers interested in climbing further up the political ladder.

In Marin, we have already got a taste of what's to come, with attention centering on an all-out slugfest that some would love to see erupt between Supervisor Susan Adams and her well-qualified opponent, former Assemblywoman Kerry Mazzoni.

Another emerging hotspot is the race for sheriff-coroner between Coroner Ken Holmes and Sheriff Robert Doyle, where Holmes' very first advertisement misleads voters by using his own quote from an Marin IJ story and displaying under a look-alike IJ logo to create the false impression that it was an endorsement.

Holmes' campaign manager is Marc O'Hara, who received a "warning letter" just last month from the state's Fair Political Practices Commission for campaign-disclosure violations in the 2004 Marin Municipal Water District board campaign.

State campaign law requires that expenditures made through so-called "independent" committees (IECs) to defeat or support candidates must be properly reported.

The FPPC letter said O'Hara and his company, Hired Gun Media, were paid for work in coordinating production of a defamatory mailer funded by such a committee, artfully calling itself California Alliance for Renewable Energy Sources.

The committee, according to the FPPC, had the duty of funneling a secretive loan from then-candidate and now-MMWD board member Larry Russell, who was also warned for reporting violations in the 2004 campaign.

(In the interests of full disclosure, I was their target).

Such committees are legal, and invariably they declare themselves innocent of any connection to the candidate they favor. When challenged, they stand behind First Amendment protections.

Unfortunately, the rules of clean-campaign conduct are observed more in their disregard than in compliance.

It comes in the form of misleading advertisements, last-minute hit pieces, computerized phone messages and, more recently, through Web-based assaults by bloggers capable of disseminating all nature of filth and falsehoods with viral speed.

County supervisors adopted a new campaign reform ordinance earlier this year. It is designed specifically to beef-up regulations governing independent expenditures in county races.

This ordinance is about to get its first test, although there are loopholes and it did not address the contribution limits issue.

The Supreme Court's severely criticized ruling lifted all limits on corporate and special-interest spending in federal campaigns.

Whether this decision will be applied to state and local campaigns is yet to be determined, but it may be a moot point so long as freewheeling political bankrollers such as Marin's Jonathan Frieman, who has questioned the ordinance's legality, are prepared to spend their own wealth to upend candidates they dislike, regardless of the negative fallout.

One would-be aspirant to the mayoral post, which would require an interim replacement as soon as 2011 if Mayor Gavin Newsom is elected lieutenant governor, is the Marin's state senator, Mark Leno, who could run without having to surrender his seat.

Leno, whose legislative district stretches from San Francisco to Sonoma, is working hard to carve out an identity as more than just the leading proponent of same-sex marriage legislation and author of the first measure of its kind in 2005, when he was an assemblyman.

He had less success backing a single-payer health care plan, which was defeated and has re-introduced a similar bill (SB 810) this year, which he expects to get to the governor's desk where it is likely to be vetoed.

He and his Assembly colleague, Jared Huffman, teamed up to write the Water Act of 2008, dealing with the serious issue of treatment plant sewage collection and the Oil Spill Response and Improvement Act. Both were vetoed.

About the man with the veto power, Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, Leno does not mince words.

"This governor fuels the flames of logjam. He considers what he does a sport not unlike weightlifting," he said.

Warming to the subject, Leno continues, "I ask, is your life today better after the recall (of Gray Davis) than it was before?"

He is adamant in his opposition to the two-thirds vote required to pass all tax measures which in his view has fueled a runaway initiative process that he sees "tying up the operations of state government in a knot."

"The voters do not want to be bothered with all these proposals" Leno said, but they are stuck with the legislative arithmetic where "a minority in both houses now wields absolute veto power."

"In what dictionary is that democracy?" he asked. "Not a single county or board of supervisors requires this in the entire state!"

If the threshold for taxing and spending measures were lowered to a simple majority as was once the case, Leno argues it would change the entire dynamic in the capitol.

Many inside and outside the dome would agree.

Proposition 13, the property tax limiting measure written into the state's Constitution in 1978 was an unintended consequence, which Leno claims, has cost the state $5 billion annually. But it is election year, so do not expect any of the gubernatorial candidates to be calling for higher taxes.

Leno is a fervent supporter of Marin Clean Energy and warns the public not to buy into PG&E's "massive misinformation campaign." He considers the giant utility's actions "shameless fear mongering," and believes the contract with Shell, which will supply Marin's energy, "rock solid."

PG&E had its chance to stop the legislation that set the stage for starting public power authorities, Leno said. "Now it wants to break state law to eliminate all competition," referring to Proposition 16, a proposed constitutional amendment that would require all cities and counties to approve municipal power plans by two-thirds votes.

As to his political future: "I intend to keep all options open," said Leno.

Leno would be eligible to run for a second four-year term in 2012. However, he could be campaigning in different ZIP codes when the district lines are redrawn next year as a result of the decennial census-taking. These will be determined by a newly created nonpartisan commission that stripped the Legislature of this power with passage of Proposition 11.

When that work is done, Leno's district, which presently includes a portion of San Francisco, could be moved entirely north of the Golden Gate or possibly reoriented south of the city to exclude Marin and Sonoma entirely.

It could also remain unchanged - a result which Leno would prefer - since he received 80 percent of the general election vote after a very contentious primary that ousted former Senator Carole Migden in what is a very safe Democratic district.

Apparently Leno's interest in City Hall was bolstered by a recent San Francisco Chamber of Commerce survey of nine wannabe candidates which showed him coming in first. Until now fellow state Sen. Leland Yee had been leading in the early polls.

When asked how serious these ambitions are, Leno responded, "It is way off in the future and I love representing the people in Marin and Sonoma."

Any plans he may have will be further complicated by several possible scenarios all of which involve Mayor Gavin Newsom's decision to run for lieutenant governor.

Were Newsom to win in the primary, and then in November beat the sitting lieutenant governor, most likely Republican Sen. Abe Maldonado, assuming the Assembly confirms him, an interim mayor would have to be either appointed or elected to serve out the year remaining in Newsom's term.

The guessing game is in full swing as to who that might be with the incumbent thereby getting a strong handle up in the next election.

Former Mayor Willie Brown is mentioned as the safest choice since he cannot run for another term. Another alternative might be the appointment of Board President David Chew, as acting mayor providing he could muster six votes besides his own.

The principal beneficiary of a Leno Aadministration would be San Rafael Assemblyman Jared Huffman, who is termed out in 2012 and will no doubt be eying the state Senate.

But were Leno to lose his bid for mayor, since he does not have to surrender his seat to run, he could face Huffman who he would consider his strongest opponent in a re-election race.

The last piece of this musical chairs puzzle revolves around Rep. Lynn Woolsey's plans. Were she to decide to retire, that seat would be an immediate prize with both Huffman and Leno potential contenders.

For now, Leno plans on becoming better known in his district. Although their future paths could tangle, he and Huffman enjoy a close working relationship and are providing North Bay voters with a double punch that is the strongest in years.

In my next column I take a closer look at Leno's track record and his stances on controversial issues such as Marin Clean Energy (he is strongly in favor), and the state's fiscal mess.

The California Legislature wants to run its own house even if in the minds of many it is doing so very badly.

Despite the internecine warfare taking place - witness the inability to muster even a simple majority to support the nomination of one of their own to fill the vacant lieutenant governor slot - there is little evidence of coming together around reforms that might ultimately save the present institution from extinction.

This might account for the lack of interest in a holding a constitutional convention - an idea sprung by a few inventive Bay Area thinkers who have no confidence Sacramento will ever mend its ways unless threatened with public rebellion.

But this sudden populist insurgency to cleanse government of its impurities has apparently come to a complete halt for the usual reasons: Lack of funds, public indifference and legislative resistance.

The mere notion of discussing any constitutional changes is apparently more daunting than Thomas Jefferson, Alexander Hamilton and their supporters found it to be when they pulled off an arguably more difficult task 224 years ago.

That's partly because democracy then did not require petition drives, hordes of lobbyists and giant bankrolls. Nor did interesting ideas have to spring from the populace; there were plenty of brilliant leaders just itching to launch a nation.

Bipartisanship was rampant. Innovation was taken for granted.

Today, the glaring absence of any of out-of-the-box thinking, orderly process and solidarity for the mutual good is thwarting adoption of even modest remedies as the political machinery grinds to a halt.

Such inertia, lack of real leadership and outright fear of change from within the legislative chambers has helped turn what seemed only months ago like a promising idea into just another quaint topic for dinner conversation.

Meanwhile, we have settled into government by public initiatives (59 at last count were being readied for the November ballot), minority dictation of budgets, insurmountable hurdles to reining in the deficits, and term limits that has turned Sacramento into a giant job placement mill and made public service a badly devalued commodity.

Repair California, a group led by Marin resident John Grubb set out to remedy this by staging a constitutional convention. It has officially closed shop, according to Jim Wunderman, CEO of the Bay Area Council, who was the original promoter of the idea.

A petition to qualify it for the November ballot by April required 1.2 million signatures and $5 million to hire a management firm. To date, $1 million was raised and 100,000 signatures collected.

"There is little discretionary cash in today's climate," says Wunderman, "Also, though it was nonpartisan, both left and right saw hidden political agendas being pushed by the other."

"We were trying to invent something for which there was no previous model," says Wunderman.

That didn't stop the founding fathers.

In September 1789, Jefferson wrote to a fellow Founder James Madison, "No society can make a perpetual constitution or even a perpetual law. The earth belongs always to the living generation."

He may have been on to something.

The governor has floated creative ideas for saving and raising money to get the state out of its terminal financial doldrums from shipping undocumented immigrants off to Mexican prisons to mounting overhead electronic billboard displays on freeway bridges.

They received only the most tepid response from legislators in both parties who are in the grips of a political paralysis which many think unprecedented as they struggle to find any common ground.

Democrats want to raise taxes which Republicans, including the governor, fiercely resist preferring cuts in services.

Even some of the cuts previously approved for prisons and Medi-Cal rates were never enacted, while $1 billion more than planned must be spent on public schools because of Proposition 98 guarantees.

These are just some of the balancing act choices, none of them popular, in a bitterly divided legislature.

With the job market still sluggish even after the infusion of millions in federal stimulus funds and with the state's jobless rate holding at 12.4 percent, the vague hopes for recovery that accompanied the cheery pronouncements from Sacramento after last year's budget crisis have only solidified voter cynicism that anything can ever get done.

These sentiments are echoed across the nation where voter revolt has already cost the Democrats a Senate seat in Massachusetts, governorships in New Jersey and Virginia, and the likelihood with the announced retirement of Sen. Evan Bayh, a popular Indian a Democrat, that the contagion is spreading and could engulf the administration by the time of the November mid-term elections.

Loss of their Senate majority is already a foregone conclusion.

In California, this is posing problems for Barbara Boxer, the former Marin resident now in her third term whose credentials as one of the most liberal members of the Senate has not hurt her in past campaigns but could be wearing thin as anti-incumbent fever stoked by Tea Party advocates and reinvigorated conservatives sweeps the country.

While Boxer is still seen as the narrow favorite, the entry into the race of political moderate and former Peninsula congressman, Tom Campbell, muddies the picture, which showed Carly Fiorina, the former Hewlett-Packard chief, with the early lead and a vast fortune to back it up.

This creates an opening for Irvine Assemblyman Chuck DeVore, who as the most conservative of the three may be positioned best to wrest the nomination. That would be welcome news for Boxer in a state which still leans heavily Democratic and who held off a charge by an ardent conservative to gain her seat in 1992.

But if California's economy and the nation's have not significantly rebounded before November which is still a good bet, no incumbents are safe.

Millions will be poured into the race to defeat Boxer, aided by the Supreme Court's recent ruling allowing corporations to spend unlimited sums in federal elections.

If this happens, California may become the bellweather state for the majority party's fortunes in November and beyond.

But Republican incumbents in California and everywhere must also worry if they cannot deliver.

Now, independent expenditure committees that have repeatedly wreaked havoc on the election process can come out of the shadows without fear of messy exposure - all thanks to the U.S. Supreme Court.

In a bombshell ruling, the court has given corporations, unions and special interests, for the first time, carte blanche to spend unlimited millions supporting or opposing candidates for federal office right up to Election Day.

According to Tiburon's Chip Nielsen, one of the foremost election law attorneys in the nation, funding restrictions in state and local elections are also "presumably" unconstitutional.

Candidates can now take advantage of this largesse with impunity regardless of how much dirt gets flung - with the sanction of the highest court in the land."

"We have a George Bush, 5-4 conservative court which has decided to open the floodgates even more in an election system already awash in corporate funds," says Congresswoman Lynn Woolsey.

For what appear to be purely ideological reasons, the court's conservatives led by Chief Justice John Roberts, with swing-voter Justice Anthony M. Kennedy joining them, decided to reverse 100 years of campaign reforms in a stunning display of judicial activism.

Justice John Paul Stevens argued in dissent, "É selling access is not qualitatively different from giving special interest preference to those who spent money on one's behalf."

To which Justice Kennedy, writing for the majority, responded, "By definition an independent expenditure is political speech presented to the electorate that is not coordinated with a candidate."

That observation, while legally accurate, has enabled wealthy donors bent on mischief to savage people's reputations repeatedly under the guise of First Amendment protections.

It appears that this merely increases the ability of powerful groups that already enjoy overwhelming financial dominance to exert even greater influence.

Sensing the anger it has provoked in the citizenry, the president took the unusual step in his State of the Union address to admonish the court.

"This diminishes the influence of ordinary citizens," says Sen. John McCain, co-author ten years ago of the McCain-Feingold Political Reform Act.

Declared Illinois Democrat, Sen. Dick Durbin, "It's political extortion."

With this ruling, wealthy corporate donors need no longer mask their identities for fear of being caught, and in fact are encouraged to have their lobbyists solicit support from lawmakers open to financial favors.

Imagine, for example, the conversation between a bank or mortgage company lobbyist and a struggling first-time candidate with little funds to get the message out or more likely the well-heeled incumbent who sees the way to bury his or her opponent.

Unions are also unleashed, but Woolsey, who has enjoyed their backing, argues they will have no where close to the same amount of money as corporations.

While candidates from both parties will be vulnerable, in the face of rising public discontent over administration policies, Republicans seeking to reclaim their congressional majorities could be the most receptive.

So is campaign reform dead?

"No," says Woolsey, "the Progressive Caucus, which I co-chair, is busy studying several bills that would prohibit expenditures by companies with federal contracts and prevent American subsidization of foreign companies. That is very dangerous."

To be precise, 109,425 votes separated the victor, Republican State Sen. Scott Brown, from his defeated opponent, Massachusetts Attorney General Martha Coakley, who was the odds-on favorite to succeed Sen. Ted Kennedy, who held the seat for 47 years.

Many of those who voted for Brown were independents who had checked the box for Obama only a year ago, when he was perceived as the "outsider" running against The Establishment and someone who could bring change.

Now the question darkening his presidency is, did he ask for too much?

Not so, Obama argues, given the multiple crises that faced him when he took office. He sees the election not so much as repudiation of his policies, but more as a failure in communication. "We were so busy getting stuff done," he told ABC's George Stephanopoulos, "that I think we lost some of that sense of speaking directly to the American people about what their core values areÉ."

If that assessment is accurate, this failure, along with a steady barrage of criticism from left and right - by those in both parties - on issues ranging from health and energy reform to unhappiness with the bank bailouts and a stimulus package, seems to have stimulated more anger than jobs. It seems to have fed a populist insurgency.

It threatens now to engulf a majority of the 49 House Democrats seeking reelection and particularly 27 freshmen running in formerly Republican districts. Liberals will cry betrayal if the administration does not stay the course on its promises. But many independents and middle-of-the road Democrats see jobs as the main priority and want the ambitious agenda scaled back.

So what can we expect from Team Obama - a sharp correction rightward similar to the one adopted by President Clinton in 1994 to salvage his presidency? Or simply tactical adjustments aimed at preserving the core elements of his program, while trying to contain further congressional and public slippage?

The leadership of Obama, who ran during a time when trust in Washington was already seriously eroding, is now being severely questioned. The verdict will depend on how accurately the message from Massachusetts is read.

Early signs are that Obama will heed his pragmatic instincts, which have also been on display in dealing with the Afghanistan war, security issues, rescuing Detroit's auto industry and dealing with the home foreclosure epidemic, to name just a few.

San Rafael Assemblyman Jared Huffman, who helped lead Obama's campaign in California, says, "We can cry in our soup and hang our heads in denial, or accept it as a wake-up call and learn from it going into the 2010 election, smarter and more effective than we might otherwise have been. To me that's an easy choice."

Adds Huffman, "I do not think it was a referendum on Barack Obama. It's about coasting on laurels and taking the public for granted."

When the president delivers his first "State of the Union" address we will find out just how much he has learned.