She's always had more than a bit of Joe Lieberman in her. And a straightforward result of voting theory is that in a situation like the 111th Senate, a small number of "mavericks" can hold outsized power, and so there's a race to get in that little group.

I think the question for DiFi is, with California in such dire straits on its own, how hard can she afford to push? I would say, not very far, assuming of course that DiFi cares much about California (vs., say, DiFi).

Either way, Washington or California, it shows how inbred the Beltway culture is if Feinstein thinks she is going to get some political advantage out of knee-capping Barack Obama and Rahm Emmanuel while they are trying to save the country from the likes of . . . her.

Barack's probably going to be very, very nice about it and Feinstein is none the less going to feel the sting of payback when the time is right.

Note to self: 1) Endorse Norm Coleman 2) Oppose economic stimulus 3) Advocate war with Iran 4) Graciously accept chairmanship of Intelligence Committee.

76?? Jesus Christ. That's simply too old to have so much power.

I suppose we should all be grateful that sometime around 2003 Feinstein didn't introduce a motion to repeal the 22nd Amendment.

the problem with the "different institutional prerogatives" defense is that on the Burris issue she is breaking less with Obama than with Reid.

if she wants to be all mavericky in a way that appeals to Californians, break with the Beltway crowd on whether Cali can have stricted environmental standards that those in federal law. not insider stuff like Burris and who got notified about Panetta when.

DiFi is a DINO

She's doing Obama a favor by pushing for Burris to be seated. "If we can seat him, surely we can seat Al Franken", for example. There is also the rule-O-law precedent; suspect as he is, Blago is the governor, and he waited a good long time before appointing anyone. So seat Burris, and let's get on with the legislating.

It's also unlikely that DiFi gains in CA by cozying up too close to the R's.

Part of it may be "You kids get off my lawn." Had Obama's mother lived she'd still be younger than Feinstein, so you can imagine how a certain kind of geriatric might look upon the rising generation.
But part of it is the common phenomenon of the solid party pol revealing the monster of ego that lies beneath. In Michigan we had Martha Griffiths, who after long service got the retirement plumb of Lt. Gov. Then the Gov decided he was running for the senate and needed a real Lt. to take over, so he asked a younger candidate to step onto the ticket.
Martha went nuclear, played the woman scorned, got the Libby Wolfson demo to sit out the election and John Engler won by a squeak and proceeded to dismantle everything that the Dems had built over the last thirty years. No indication that Griffiths did anything other than purr.

DiFi is a DINO

Ageist!

If only George Moscone had lived!

It always seems to be a case of "me," not "we" with so many pols. We really aren't that far removed from our playground days.

So sad.

o
o

for Obama, the "dissent" is no biggie: he's said that he's comfortable with people speaking their minds

what is amusing, though, is that NOW Feinstein grows a set of ovaries, when for 8 years she was essentially silent in the face of outrage after outrage. In other words, it's just more standard politician's hypocrisy

Anyone else remember Feinstein escorting Condi Rice to her Senate confirmation hearing as Secretary of State? Feinstein's wholehearted support for Rice, fresh from her failures as National Security Adviser, spoke volumes about both Feinstein's judgment and her politics.
That Panetta lacks experience in intelligence gathering is a plus in my book. The people with experience were the same ones who missed the collapse of the Soviet Union, failed to prevent 9/11, and seemed not to notice that Saddam had no WMD's. Experience only counts when it makes a person more effective.
Feinstein has been a DINO for years. That she was given the chair of an important Senate committee, a la the backstabbing Bush butt-monkey Lieberman, is a another tribute to the utter cluelessness of Harry Reid.

I don't know that changing her mind on Burris was maverickitude more than pure pique at having been gone around on Panetta. We always do these people the honor of assuming they have a plan, when we've seen that quite often they're just acting out like small children.

But do go ahead and challenge the PE on anything that pops into your head, Senator Feinstein. Let us know how that works out.

DiFi sent me long letters defending her votes for W's nominees.

This maverickiness is actually just normal Senatorial hypocrisy.

Whatever she runs for, she won't have my vote.

" That she was given the chair of an important Senate committee, a la the backstabbing Bush butt-monkey Lieberman, is a another tribute to the utter cluelessness of Harry Reid."

Harry Reid is part of the anti-Enlightenment, anti-God, anti-American Moromon death-cult. Every action of Reids is predicated upon destroying everything preventing a Mormon theocracy. If something supports Republican Dominionism, Reid champions it as essential to the functioning of the US; if something supports the Constituion and ideas of freedom, equality, and justice, Reid opposes it as "unAmerican".

Reid can only be considered "uterly[sic] clueless" if you start with the premise he cares about the United States of America and the Constitution upon which it rests. Start with the premise that he wants create the United States of the LDS based upon the Book of Mor(m)on, and he's proceeding at quite a clip.

What is this wench trying to do---become Joementum Lite? She's making about as much sense as California's plan to issue "i.o.u.'s" to vendors in lieu of payment---as if those vendors are going to keep giving the Governator bunches of free stuff....

Maybe she is more neoconservative than American? Liberals get confused by the similarity in names between "conservative" and "neoconservative." This could account for her opposition to Panetta.

On Roland Burris, she is simply correct. It is petty to punish Roland Burris for alleged wrongdoing on the part of Blago. If he made a decent appointment, it should be weighed on its merits, not on a mob mentality of PR conscious politicians making a phony show of distancing themselves from a fellow politician to simulate a non-existent Puritan level of integrity.

DiFi has always been "mavericky," but she is a reliable vote on most issues. It's best to let go of purity; the perfect is the enemy of the good and a little dissent on Burris or grumbling about Panetta is not that big a deal in the grand scheme of things. I'm troubled by her torture and war voting inclinations and I believe we need to keep her feet to the fire on national security and intelligence issues. She's not a Lieberman or a Zell Miller and Dems would be foolish to drum her out of the party. She's probably the 2nd most popular pol in California (Obama is #1) and she's a better friend than enemy.

Maybe DF changed her tune because Blago paid her off?? Possible, always.......probable no