Whoever those so-called unnamed Democratic Senators and ex-staffers were, who thought it was a good

[JohnSJ]

idea to go to the press and say Senator Feinstein was unfit:

**** YOU

This is why we lose elections because of stunts like this

How about attacking republicans and their hypocrisy for a change.

That rarely happens.

It did happen about a week ago when Senator Brian Schatz called out josh hawley for his lies and hypocrisy, but that happens so rarely it is pathetic.

Hell, when graham kept interrupting Judge Jackson, and wouldn't even let her finish and answer, along with ignoring the time limit rule, the so-called push back from Durbin was quite sad.

Remember when McConnell shut down Senator Elizabeth Warren for speaking the truth about Sessions?

Unless the Democrats start pushing back on the constant abuse from the republicans, the future isn't going to be pretty


rant over, and Flame Away!!!

[dem4decades]

1. How do you know it was a Democrat that said something?

[JohnSJ]

3. Because the SF Chronicle reported three unnamed Democratic Senators as doing it

https://www.sfchronicle.com/politics/article/dianne-feinstein-senate-17079487.php

[Budi]

5. Article said it was from staffers/Senators. But the only name dropped was Feinstein's.

Unnamed staffers could be anyone. Or just one .
Its DC media. The papparazzi with 'sources' & a need for a scoop to feed the press.

Her lifetime partner, her husband is sick & passes away & some unnamed source grabs an opportunity for an inside scoop.

Doubt it was anyone close to her or anyone who calls her a friend.
Political affiliation is irrelevant at this point.
From a human aspect this was a shitty move & shittier for the sleazy DB 'journo' to run it to the media.

Better question:
Who wants her Senate seat.

[JohnSJ]

14. Here is the SF Chronicle link, and they said specifically there were three Democratic Senators

https://www.sfchronicle.com/politics/article/dianne-feinstein-senate-17079487.php

[Budi]

16. Since they were public figures, they should be named.

What a shitty thing to do.
Backstabbing saboteurs, waiting for her Senate seat.
Whose names were already tossed out as her replacement, faster than the ink was dry on the gossip piece?

There's only one group that plays this dirty game for position, while smiling to your face.

[JohnSJ]

18. I agree. Shame on them

[Budi]

24. Yup. This is their predictable M.O. as an election nears.

If she chooses to retire, I see Newsom appointing a lifetime dedicated Democrat.
One who has the broad creds to step in & stand solid with our Democratic leaders.

The saboteurs can sit this one out.

[Me.]

27. I Can Say There ARe Six Democratic Senators But THat Doesn't Make It True

unless there are names to go with the statement

[JohnSJ]

28. why would the newspaper make it up?

[Me.]

29. THere Could Be A Number Of Reasons Why They printed It

JUst ask the NY Times and her emails. A once trusted source repeating an unfounded rumor. Malicious gossip taken as truth. Everything positive said about tfg is suspicious yet it gets printed. There are reasons topped by sloppy journalism.

[JohnSJ]

30. touche'

[ananda]

13. I know. I was thinking of rightwing trolls.

...

[Tetrachloride]

2. Vote blue no matter who.

This situation out of nowhere is far more likely a Republican scheme or a Russian scheme.

[leftstreet]

4. I don't think that's why the party loses elections

As for Feinstein and the unnamed senators, this looks like political maneuvering that has nothing to do with pushing back against GOPers

I'm remembering this from January

Link to tweet

?s=20&t=s0o1KGwEq_PL1o-hCNFo-g

[Kingofalldems]

6. Your post sure looks like an attack on Democrats from here.

[JohnSJ]

9. Then be my guest

[Budi]

10. No. It looks like sabotage with a gossip scoop to a sleazy journalist.

Who wants her Senate seat?

[onecaliberal]

23. 👆🏻👆🏻👆🏻

[Celerity]

36. the SF Chronicle is hardly 'sleazy', it is the No Cal paper of record and extremely well respected

https://www.democraticunderground.com/100216593699

[bigtree]

62. why don't the Democrats who spread these rumors reveal themselves?

...what's the actual justification for making these anonymous claims?

It's the sleaziest of politics, and the accusers are taking these shots behind her back. Only someone politically opposed to Sen. Feinstein would attack her like this. That's what makes this sleazy, no matter how much you respect this newspaper.

It looks like a mostly progressive paper attacking a moderate Cal pol, but that's just me.

[Celerity]

65. The Chronicle is hardly some flaming radical lefty paper.

You act like this whole thing is brand new. It is not. Feinstein is one of my Senators. I voted for de Leon in both the primary and de Leon in the general (along with over 5 million other Californians in the general, the most ever in US history for a losing Senate candidate).

Hopefully Feinstein chooses not to run again in 2024 (she will be closing in on 98 at the end of that term, and is not up to another 8 or so years in the Senate). If she does, she will lose this time, yet could still draw off enough votes to allow a Rethug to sneak into the general.

In the entire history of the US, there has only been 4 senators who served into their 90's (Theodore Green, Carl Hayden, Robert Byrd, and Strom 'drooler-at-the-end' Thurmond, with Hayden being the only one who was of sound mind and body at the end). Feinstein, barring death or retirement during the last 2 years of her current term, and then Grassley, if he wins in 2022, will make 6.

In the House, there has only been one person (Ralph Hall) ever who served into their 90's. Nonagenarian (and not barely 90, we are talking well deep onto their 90's, starting to approach 100yo) Congress members starting become a thing is not a trend to be desired. We need people at the height of their powers to handle an increasingly troubled and complex world.

[bigtree]

66. it's an old political attack on Feinstein

...pointing out that it's been going on for a long time doesn't make it true.

You repeating the vile attacks don't make them true either.

[Celerity]

68. I disagree, and you are trying to frame your opinion as the only valid one, whist falsely assigning

nefarious intent to mine, which is simply not the case.

[bigtree]

70. this is vile politics. I don't care if you're offended by my saying that

...and it's not a new thing with progressives and Feinstein.

Somehow, it's been made acceptable to attack this Democratic senator with all sorts of insulting charges over the many years I've been here. "Dino" was the most prominent used by progressives in protest of her defense and war votes.

Now here we are again with some special space apparently carved out here for vile, ageist attacks on the Senator based on little more than innuendo and rumor. No medical reports, just vile political attacks from opponents.

I don't profess to know why you've been defending these vile attacks in post after post, and I don't care. This isn't a political debate, it's a political effort to portray Sen. Feinstein as senile. You don't get argue that your participation is inviolable. You just don't.

[Celerity]

72. Why do you keep trying to drag in progressives in to this? I never raised that issue. Perhaps

take it up with someone who did. I certainly did not call Feinstein a DINO.

This seems like a pre-existing issue you have (as you keep bringing it up), and you appear to be (IMHO) trying involve me as some sort of protagonist whom you can joust about with over your framing.

There are plenty of other posters who apparently disagree with your overall positings as well, some on this very thread. Perhaps try them if you wish to keep going.

As for myself, I am done here, as we are simply going in circles and you continue to try and slag me off.

[bigtree]

73. did you forget the progressive leaning newspaper?

...the vile attacks about Feinstein's mental state have been around for over a decade. But you argue those attacks are legitimate by virtue of the duration.

For your education, I remind you that the opposition among Democrats to Sen. Feinstein has been progressive-led, regularly casting her as MIC-compromised, and adopting this vile politics about her age.

You may well want me to talk about the endless justifications in your posts for these ageist attacks, but I recognize these anon charges over the years as just progressive opposition to the senator. It's not hard to find those opponents here, just read the threads.

The ageist attacks are part and parcel of what has been a progressive push to get her out of office. Again, you may well want me to debate anonymously quoted rumors and innuendo, but I'm not taking the bait. I recognize these anonymous attacks as political opposition, plain and simple. That's the point I'm going to make here, not spending my time giving credence to gossip.

Why don't the Democrats named in the article say these things on the record?

[Celerity]

74. Your attempts to frame the San Francisco Chronicle as some sort of leftie prog-hugging newspaper

are a fail. They are a centre left, well-respected paper of record for Northern California (and have sway state-wide as well)


In 2020, they endorsed Amy Klobuchar for POTUS, hardly a fire-breathing Squad clone.

Editorial: Chronicle recommends Amy Klobuchar in the Democratic primary

https://www.sfchronicle.com/opinion/editorials/article/Editorial-Chronicle-recommends-Amy-Klobuchar-in-15074770.php


They also sided with the business community and opposed Preposition E (which blocked growth) and was very much a progressive supported Prop

Editorial: No on SF Prop. E, which discourages growth instead of encouraging housing

https://www.sfchronicle.com/opinion/editorials/article/Editorial-No-on-S-F-Prop-E-which-discourages-15018129.php


In 2018, they endorsed FEINSTEIN


Editorial: Chronicle Recommends Dianne Feinstein for U.S. Senate

https://www.sfchronicle.com/opinion/editorials/article/Editorial-Chronicle-Recommends-Dianne-Feinstein-12833238.php


They also, in 2018, endorsed the more moderate Jeff Bleich for California lieutenant governor over 3 more progressive candidates, Eleni Kounalakis (who won), Ed Hernandez, and Gayle McLaughlin (a Berniecrat type)


Editorial: Jeff Bleich for California lieutenant governor

https://www.sfchronicle.com/opinion/editorials/article/Editorial-Jeff-Bleich-for-California-lieutenant-12815579.php



In 2016, they endorsed Clinton, the other San Francisco papers endorsed Sanders

Chronicle recommends: Hillary Clinton for president

https://www.sfchronicle.com/opinion/editorials/article/Chronicle-recommends-Hillary-Clinton-for-9123797.php

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newspaper_endorsements_in_the_2016_United_States_presidential_primaries

[bigtree]

75. calling the paper progressive-leaning isn't a 'frame,' not even a criticism, just an observation

...the editorial endorsements don't really make your point. They didn't endorse the independent posing as a Democrat in the primary? Gads!

Anyhow, going on about my opinion is a deflection from their publishing unnamed quotes from politicians attacking Sen. Feinstein with vile, opportunistic ageism.

Why are politicians who attacked her hiding behind the paper? Why are they letting them?

[Celerity]

77. No deflection at all. You have repeatedly tried to falsely assign a lefty prog-loving agenda to the

Chronicle as some sort of narrative, and I just debunked that, including their endorsing Klobuchar (let me guess, you are going to say Klobuchar was a crypto-Berniecrat, lol) in 2020 and Feinstein herself in 2018.

You are the one who made that repeated false accusation a cornerstone of your argument, not me.

[bigtree]

78. well, it's really not the cornerstone of my argument

...the smears the paper ran are my complaint, and you're doing your best to divert from those.

Why do you think they ran such salacious quotes anonymously from Democratic legislators? It's as good as an attack on Sen. Feinstein.

Why would they be a willing vehicle for anonymous political attacks, especially from fellow legislators? It's not a fine line here. This is a political act to run with this vile gossip in their paper. Can you really see them endorsing her again?

[BradAllison]

69. Funny how that works, eh?

[BannonsLiver]

7. Yes

Elected officials should not be subject to any questions about their physical or mental fitness ever. Especially when they’re one of OURS.

Does that about cover it?

[Budi]

11. No one said that. But you.

[JohnSJ]

12. Because doing unnamed through the media is such a courageous thing.

[onecaliberal]

8. Idgaf if they stuff her and roll her around like a weekend with Bernie. I WILL vote straight ticket

Democratic. As I always have.

[JohnSJ]

15. Of course, but it is just the typical circular firing squad

[onecaliberal]

22. I literally just got a local news alert about this. This makes me really fucking mad.

[gratuitous]

17. Boy, remember how Republicans did all that back-biting on Strom Thurmond?

South Carolina kept sending Strom back to the Senate when he was 100 years old, And boy, did the other Senate Republicans back-stab the Senator from Tang for being out of it.

Waitasecond.

Oh yeah, that never happened. Even when he got on the Senators Only elevator and taunted Sen. Carol Moseley Braun that he was going to make her cry. Why, he was going to sing "Dixie" until Sen. Moseley Braun cried. Man, the other Republicans got on Strom like a goose on a june bug, and threatened to censure him for mistreating a fellow Senator, especially a Black woman.

Hold on, I think I'm thinking of something else.

Or how it was revealed after Strom died that he'd fathered a child with a Black servant in his house, and hushed it up for decades until Essie Mae Washington-Williams at last told the world who her father had been. I thought the Republicans were going to dig up Strom's corpse and throw it into the sea, they were so outra--

Dammit, that didn't happen, either!

[Kaleva]

20. They are doing and continue to do a lot of back stabbing of TFG

[JohnSJ]

21. I do remember trent lott praising Thurmond's and his segregationist views, and how much better the

nation would be if thurmond became president in 1948.

(I wasn't even born then, but lott referred to that period when honoring thurmond)

[former9thward]

48. Well if you remember Thurmond asked Joe Biden to do his eulogy.

And Biden did. The Senate is a club and people there are friends no matter their views.

[JohnSJ]

55. No, I probably wasn't paying attention, regardless it definitely isn't the same club that it was the

[former9thward]

56. Maybe it isn't.

[JohnSJ]

57. Thanks

[JoanofArgh]

19. Meh. Feinstein is from a deep blue state. They probably wouldn't have done this otherwise.

[Budi]

26. Saboteurs of the Dem Party do this only in safe blue districts/States.

They don't challenge R's like this.
Its the "wait for a vulnerable moment & blast it to the press" method of sabatoge..

[Tetrachloride]

25. I am going to say: SF Chronicle is lying.

no evidence
all hot air

they are welcome to prove me wrong

[Autumn]

31. Whoever they are they did the right thing. Someone with dementia should not be in government. nt

[JohnSJ]

32. You mean reporting it as an UNNAMED source is the "right thing to do"? That speaks

volumes, about what a coward is

Thank-you doctor for you evaluation

Here in California, we can make our own decisions thank-you

[Autumn]

33. I never fucking claimed to be a doctor. As one who has had a family member

with dementia there are clues all one has to do is look for them. When you live with dementia it stands out like a sore thumb. As for your outrage over" UNNAMED sources" (more than one) it's fucking laughable. There have always been UNNAMED sources, that is nothing new. Deal with it.

At least I'm offering my opinion on the actual subject of her dementia not just ranting with futile outrage at the people who brought it out to the public.

[JohnSJ]

34. I was being sarcastic, but you are saying Feinstein has "dementia". That is about as valid as Frist

seeing a video of Terri Schiavo and saying she is fully cognizant

Thank goodness I don't have to deal with you, and I am sure the feeling is mutual

Also, you are NOT the only one who has family members with dementia

[Autumn]

35. It was mentioned a few months back that she has dementia. I started paying attention. If people who

work with her are saying she has it I'm taking their word on it. You are free to ignore it.

[JohnSJ]

37. unamed people. bull

[Autumn]

38. There have always been unnamed sources in governemnet. Chuck Schumer had conversations with her

a couple year back about her cognitive decline. There's a named source for you.

[sheshe2]

39. link?

[Autumn]

40. An easy google search. It was discussed here back in 2020.

https://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/dianne-feinsteins-missteps-raise-a-painful-age-question-among-senate-democrats

https://www.sfchronicle.com/politics/article/dianne-feinstein-senate-17079487.php

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9039399/Chuck-Schumer-painful-conversations-Dianne-Feinstein-87-cognitive-decline.html

[sheshe2]

41. Welp

First one I couldn't read, not a member.

Second one has no mention of conversation with Schumer

Third one, the daily mail.

Is the Daily Mail Reliable?

The Daily Mail is the UK’s biggest newspaper by circulation and an internationally popular online tabloid and source of information. However, many criticize the paper as inaccurate and guilty of spreading disinformation, with an often right-leaning bias. The site has also come under fire for a variety of controversies, including accusations of homophobia, racism, and sexism. So, just how reliable is the Daily Mail?

More https://www.thefactual.com/blog/is-the-daily-mail-reliable/

[JohnSJ]

42. Also, still unnamed people. I remember them trying to play this toward Biden, when the jackass

from the Newsmax asked Biden if he was mentally challenged

When a cbs jackass asked him if he took a cognitive test, Biden threw back to the jerk, that is like saying before you get on this program if you are taking a test for cocaine. It is a loaded question
which assumes the answer before the question is asked

This crap comes right out of the RW bubble

[Autumn]

44. You can't read the one about Schumer's talk with her either? Here you go. got his name and all.

https://abc7.com/dianne-feinstein-ca-senators-senate-judiciary-committe-chuck-schumer/8671919/

[Autumn]

43. Welp. The first one I read and I'm not a member, how odd that is the one with Schumer.

All I did was say no thanks when asked if I wanted to subscribe and it took me right to the article. No membership needed.

try this one. Doesn't seem to be a problem with it.
https://abc7.com/dianne-feinstein-ca-senators-senate-judiciary-committe-chuck-schumer/8671919/

The Daily mail is like any other newspaper, they hit and miss but a lot of people will ignore the message because it's easier to discuss the messenger than the message. That's reality.



I'm sure you can google and find one you like

[lapucelle]

46. The Daily Mail is not "like any other newspaper". It is a right-wing rag and a questionable source.

[sheshe2]

49. I just posted similar to you.

Along with links.

[lapucelle]

50. I saw that. I can't imagine ever normalizing the Daily Mail.

[Autumn]

53. There are other sources. Try google. Done here.

[sheshe2]

47. The Daily Mail is not a newspaper it is a tabloid.

?w=600&ssl=1

QUESTIONABLE SOURCE
A questionable source exhibits one or more of the following: extreme bias, consistent promotion of propaganda/conspiracies, poor or no sourcing to credible information, a complete lack of transparency, and/or is fake news. Fake News is the deliberate attempt to publish hoaxes and/or disinformation for profit or influence (Learn More). Sources listed in the Questionable Category may be very untrustworthy and should be fact-checked on a per-article basis. Please note sources on this list are not considered fake news unless specifically written in the reasoning section for that source.

Overall, we rate Daily Mail Right Biased and Questionable due to numerous failed fact checks and poor information sourcing.

Questionable Reasoning: Right, Propaganda, Conspiracy, Some Fake News, Numerous Failed Fact Checks
Bias Rating: RIGHT
Factual Reporting: LOW
Country: United Kingdom
Press Freedom Rank: MOSTLY FREE
Media Type: Newspaper
Traffic/Popularity: High Traffic
MBFC Credibility Rating: LOW CREDIBILITY

https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/daily-mail/

[sheshe2]

51. Interesting.

I asked for links about Schumer.

Onll one about Schumer was the one I couldn't read. The Daily mail? Perhaps you should read what I and others have posted regarding their reliability. Fact check says they are a RW rag. You should check your sources before posting them.

[Autumn]

52. Yet you still ignore the issue, there are other links about Schumer's talks with her. You don't have

any thoughts on the issue at hand we are done here.

[sheshe2]

54. Night night

[Hekate]

59. You have to give this poster a lot of credit for being determined, though

[sheshe2]

60. I do!

[Midwestern Democrat]

61. I have to laugh at the contempt for the use of "unnamed sources". Exactly what kind of news do

people think they are going to get from only "named sources" - some solid stuff, but also a lot of spin and glorified press releases. Anything that the powers-that-be don't want made public is only going to get revealed - unauthorized - by an "unnamed source". The thing about "unnamed sources" is you need to get corroboration from other people or documents to avoid cases where someone simply has an axe to grind or is giving highly self-serving, self-aggrandizing accounts to make themselves look good.

[bigtree]

64. so these pols with an axe to grind should be seen as credible?

...politicians spreading vile rumors anonymously to reporters?

That would seem to indicate they're political opponents, but sure, let's treat their unproven gossip made from the shadows as unassailable fact.

[Autumn]

80. You do know that reporters will agree to not release names, which is why they are called unnamed

sources, to get the story verified. There are videos of Feinstein having episodes. I suppose those actual videos are unproven gossip too.

[bigtree]

81. anyone can get snipped and ridiculed as she's been

...it's tawdry and just wrong.

It's not as if there aren't other issues to oppose her on, but her opponents, supposedly Democrats, can't seem to do much more than run this ageist ridicule campaign, same crap Biden has to deal with.

You can't really show that she's not performing her duties as well as or better than her fellow legislators, so it's just this video gotcha stuff. No imagination, not exactly inspiring for whatever politics is behind it all.

[Autumn]

79. That suits people who only want to hear what they want to hear perfectly. Mustn't spoil their

fantasy.

[bigtree]

82. this is worst of the comebacks

...I guesss people defending Feinstein over this haven't seen enough clips of her making a mistake, or read enough of her opponents lurid ageism, or maybe didn't hear something some nameless Democrat who wants her seat supposedly said somewhere, or what Daily Mail and NYPost said they said.

The fantasy is that Feinstein is going to be run out of the Senate by rumor mongering and dirty politics. I know that hurts some folks, but there's always '24.

[Autumn]

83. Yet you ignore what had Schumer concerned so much that he talked to her about it. We won't agree on

this so I think we are done. I firmly believe that any one in power has any neurological issues such as dementia they should step down. Should Democrats retain control of the Senate after the 2022 midterm election, she would be poised to become the Senate president pro tempore. To me that's a real problem.

[bigtree]

84. it was political

...it's right there in the articles for anyone who can read.

Feinstein made conciliatory comments and gestures to republicans after the SCOTUS hearings, and progressives sore about losing, blamed Feinstein even though she didn't control senators, and used the same attack that they've been using for decades that she's too old for the seat and this time that she must be senile.

There was all this, "that's not the Diane Feinstein we knew" feint concern while twisting the knives in her back, just like at present. Just the lowest tactic, clearly from people who've wanted her out of that seat because of political differences that have nothing to do with her mental state.

There's this 'everyone knows' thing her opponents do that they think will help their anti-democratic interest in having the Calif. governor fill the seat before voter have a chance.

But, shh, let's pretend we don't see longtime progressive opponents opportunistically jumping on the internet doctor bandwagon to try and edge her out of office in the most disgusting manner imaginable. Basically openly humiliating a woman who just lost her husband after a long illness just WEEKS ago.

Yeah Schumer caved to their demands that she be replaced, and as we all saw, the heavens opened and all of our problems were solved.

If someone has actual evidence of those medical conditions you described, not gossip, they should share them, instead of these backstabbing, anonymous attacks through local reporters.

[Autumn]

85. Of course it's political. It's politics, she's a politician.

https://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/dianne-feinsteins-missteps-raise-a-painful-age-question-among-senate-democrats

In a hearing on November 17th, Dianne Feinstein, the senior Democrat on the Senate Judiciary Committee, who, at eighty-seven, is the oldest member of the Senate, grilled a witness. Reading from a sheaf of prepared papers, she asked Jack Dorsey, the C.E.O. of Twitter, whether his company was doing enough to stem the spread of disinformation. Elaborating, she read in full a tweet that President Trump had disseminated on November 7th, falsely claiming to have won the Presidential election. She then asked Dorsey if Twitter’s labelling of the tweet as disputed had adequately alerted readers that it was a bald lie.

It was a good question. Feinstein seemed sharp and focussed. For decades, she has been the epitome of a female trailblazer in Washington, always hyper-prepared. But this time, after Dorsey responded, Feinstein asked him the same question again, reading it word for word, along with the Trump tweet. Her inflection was eerily identical. Feinstein looked and sounded just as authoritative, seemingly registering no awareness that she was repeating herself verbatim. Dorsey graciously answered the question all over again.

https://www.sfchronicle.com/politics/article/dianne-feinstein-senate-17079487.php

WASHINGTON — When a California Democrat in Congress recently engaged in an extended conversation with Sen. Dianne Feinstein, they prepared for a rigorous policy discussion like those they’d had with her many times over the last 15 years.
Instead, the lawmaker said, they had to reintroduce themselves to Feinstein multiple times during an interaction that lasted several hours.

Rather than delve into policy, Feinstein, 88, repeated the same small-talk questions, like asking the lawmaker what mattered to voters in their district, the member of Congress said, with no apparent recognition the two had already had a similar conversation.

The episode was so unnerving that the lawmaker — who spoke to The Chronicle on condition they not be identified because of the sensitivity of the topic — began raising concerns with colleagues to see if some kind of intervention to persuade Feinstein to retire was possible. Feinstein’s term runs through the end of 2024. The conversation occurred several weeks before the death of her husband in February.

“I have worked with her for a long time and long enough to know what she was like just a few years ago: always in command, always in charge, on top of the details, basically couldn’t resist a conversation where she was driving some bill or some idea. All of that is gone,” the lawmaker said. “She was an intellectual and political force not that long ago, and that’s why my encounter with her was so jarring. Because there was just no trace of that.”

[bigtree]

86. but it's a canard

...so good luck with it.

Really inspires to whatever politics is behind it. Trying to remember someone hounded like this in the Senate. Charming that Democrats are doing it.

[Autumn]

87. No. It's not a canard. It's just not playing out in the media out of respect for her. That's why

the sources are asking to not be identified. They are her co workers, they are her friends. I know what dementia is, I know what it does.

You have a nice day.

[bigtree]

88. they are her political opponents. No one is dumb enough to believe they did this to help her

...friends don't attack you anonymously to reporters.

These are people who not only want her seat, but want the Calif. governor to fill it before voters have a say. That's what 'political' means in this case, not some pollyannaish altruism.

[Autumn]

89. Schumer is her political opponent? Sure.

[bigtree]

90. there are no direct quotes from Schumer about her mental state

...just second-hand reporting from Daily Mail NYPost and the apparently unassailable Jane Mayer that he'd discussed Feinstein's mental condition in those meetings.

The reports read like bad fictional drama. Believe what you want. It was political backstabbing that prompted Schumer to remove Feinstein from the seat. Sour grapes and ass-covering over failing to stop Trump's SCOTUS nominees, as if there was something Feinstein could have done to make senators vote them down.

Eventually a sheepish Schumer, under political fire for the losses, agreed to push her out, amid the lurid charges that whatever Feinstein did or said in those hearings that they disagreed with MUST have been because she's senile or something.

"That's not the Feinstein I know!" came the feint concern after the hearings from longtime political opponents. What an absolute farce. And what a cowardly thing Schumer did in making her step down.

Now these political opponents have emerged again, hiding behind a local reporter, pushing the same disgusting attack. What's really insidious is how each anonymous charge feeds off of previous ones, as if the repetition gives the unproven gossip more credibility.

I get that people want younger leadership in that seat. What I don't agree with is pushing this disgusting politics to take that choice out of the hands of voters. That kind of anti-democratic, anti-voter fervor (the recalls) seems endemic in California.

here's Nancy Pelosi:

Calling Feinstein “a workhorse for the people of California and a respected leader among her colleagues in the Senate,” Pelosi stated that the attacks on her fellow San Francisco Democrat are “unconscionable” and “ridiculous.”

“It is unconscionable that, just weeks after losing her beloved husband of more than four decades and after decades of outstanding leadership to our City and State, she is being subjected to these ridiculous attacks that are beneath the dignity in which she has led and the esteem in which she is held,” Pelosi stated.

Pelosi defended Feinstein, saying “she is constantly traveling between California and the Capitol, working relentlessly to ensure Californians’ needs are met and voices are heard. Her leadership was essential in strengthening and reauthorizing the Violence Against Women Act, which was enacted just last month. As a senior Member of the Judiciary Committee, Senator Feinstein played a leading role in confirming the President’s historic nominee for the Supreme Court, Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson, and has been an unsurpassed leader in the fight against gun violence.”

I'll go with the Speaker's assessment.

[bigtree]

63. that's how the conversation was described in papers like Daily Mail and NYPost

...second hand claims that Schumer was pressing the line progressives had been spreading around that her hug of Graham or her praise of republican cooperation on the committee was some sign that she was senile.

It was a vile attack and basically just blaming Feinstein for the inevitable advancement of Trump;s SC nominees. Schumer caved to progressive senator's complaints and removed her after discussions.

There isn't a Schumer quote because he hasn't made one about Feinstein's mental state. The suggestion that it was discussed is an extension of the vile blame game that followed the SC hearings, and basically an unsupported rumor. A lie, imo.

The discussions with Schumer were about removing her from the committee - basically making her the fall person for some absurd notion that there was something she could have done in those hearings to win over republicans against Barrett and Kavanaugh. The accusations about her mental health which followed those hearings were from horribly insensitive people making unsupported claims to suit their political agenda.

And here we are with the worst of the unproven, denied demagoguery flying around a Democratic board like the truth is just an afterthought to political interest and expediency.

[brooklynite]

45. Nobody seems to complain when folks here label her a "corporate Dem"...

...and suggest she be Primaried.

[JohnSJ]

58. Who do you think are those unnamed Democrats are?

If those names ever come out, I will vote for any Democratic opponent that challenges them

Those unnamed jackasses have made this headlines for the last several days.

I have nothing good to say about them, and will work for any Democrat who opposes them

[budkin]

67. Feinstein needs to retire

It’s time.

[LetMyPeopleVote]

71. I agree with the OP

Attacking Senator Feinstein is wrong

[Diablo del sol]

76. She needs to retire.

She selfishly ran again. As a Californian I can say we deserve better than her and her late husband.

Sorry if I am raining on the DiFi pity party. She has sucked for over a decade. Not the type of leader we need from the great State of CA.

And before someone goes off on an ignorant sexist rant. Barbara Boxer was great.