An issue that any serious California gubernatorial candidate faces is, well, California. The most populous state in the nation, and incredibly socially, economically, and ethnically diverse, California forces its gubernatorial candidates to be many things to many different people. This poses a formidable challenge to any politician, but Newsom especially struggled with this.

Let's face it -- San Francisco politics have long existed within a very specific context and, in many instances, don't smoothly transfer to other areas and their particular philosophies. Newsom, traveling throughout the state over the summer, fought to convince skeptics that he wasn't just a "liberal from San Francisco." He apparently winced when people defined him as only being associated with gay marriage, and constantly attempted to remind such people of his "broader portfolio."

Politicos are still not entirely sure if Brown has the Democratic nomination locked up. California Sen. Dianne Feinstein still looms in the background as a possibility, though it's unlikely. Should no one else enter the Democratic primary, it will be interesting to see whether Brown's uncontested run proves to be a good thing or a bad thing; sometimes the best candidates are ones whose feet have been held to the fire by a formidable opponent.

While Newsom was a dark horse, no one can argue with his reform-minded bonafides. In a recent op-ed in the Los Angeles Times, Jerry Roberts and Phil Trounstine expressed their doubt that the main contenders left in the race (besides Brown, the Republicans are former eBay Chief Executive Meg Whitman, ex-Rep. Tom Campbell and Insurance Commissioner Steve Poizner) are anything but baby boomers who are "longtime establishment insiders in business, politics or both." Roberts and Trounstine saw hope, however imperfect, in Newsom: "At a time when Californians have record-low regard for state government, none of the four has mounted a challenge to the status quo as strongly as did Newsom. A flawed messenger lacking focus and the discipline to raise the vast sums needed, he nonetheless came closest to seizing the mantle of change."

Perhaps Newsom, with a new family and business to attend to in San Francisco, was right to drop out -- after all, the fiscal and structural disaster that is California, at times deemed "ungovernable," would certainly require energy from Newsom that he would otherwise devote to his new wife and infant daughter. This summer, The New York Times Magazine ran a lengthy and somewhat depressing account of the challenges facing California's next governor (among the candidates profiled, Newsom is heavily featured) and posed the question: Who can possibly run California?

The last couple of weeks have obviously been tough on Newsom. The Chronicle ran a story in today's paper on Newsom's "disappearance" from City Hall since he dropped out of the race a week ago; he apparently jetted off to Hawaii with his family without notifying his staff, who had to cancel many of his appearances at the last minute. According to the article, Newsom is scheduled to return to City Hall today, surely prepared to do a bit of explaining. The article quotes Corey Cook, a political science professor at the University of San Francisco, who says, "He's clearly at a crossroads in terms of his career in public service, and he clearly has some decisions to make." He most certainly does.