Looks like we have a progressive challenger for Dianne Feinstein in CA

[nbsmom]

Wealthy entrepreneur may challenge from the left.

http://www.politico.com/story/2017/09/07/progressive-challenger-emerges-feinstein-242472

🙌🏼

[sprinkleeninow]

1. Ooh, Blue Apron! We love food! eom

[greeny2323]

2. I approve

I've said it before. With the strength of liberals in CA, we should have nothing but Franken and Warren types of Democrats from that state.

[Egnever]

4. Yea Difi should have been gone long ago.

[Expecting Rain]

9. We love Dianne Feinstein here in California.

There is a good reason she's our senior Senator.

[Madam45for2923]

151. Please don't miss this old OP about Feinstein:

https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=9553712

[Hekate]

159. Certain people are eally pushing this meme for all it is worth. Makes me wonder...

...about their motivations.

[clu]

165. expecting rain

your handle is depressing whewwwww

[Hekate]

19. Do you live here? Which district? You know how many of our Congressmen are Repubs?

Because what you said is really ignorant.

[wryter2000]

54. Ronald effing Reagan came from CA n/t

[Hekate]

70. So did Richard Nixon. Our staunch Dem Congressman is a freshman...

...and the big GOP money is coming after him next year. He could easily lose -- half our oh-so- liberal county is actually oh-so-conservative.

[clu]

155. this is a very valid concern

looking at the NY dem primary results there were a few areas that were very strong for Hillary. any progressive groups should take this into consideration with their messaging but I don't think the messaging should change that much.

[DFW]

102. Illinois is not in California

FYI

[wryter2000]

115. His political career was in California

I didn't mean where he was born.

He came to a position of power sufficient to run for President in California.

[tammywammy]

117. He was governor of California.

His political career was based in California not the state he was born in.

[still_one]

58. I have wondered just how many posters telling California what to do are even from California

I went to a rally for Senator Boxer years ago, and Senator Boxer made it clear that we should never as Democrats take anything for granted in California, and the reason for that is because California is a very independent state

[stonecutter357]

126. I have wondered just how many posters telling California what to do are from Russian.

[Voltaire2]

127. Claiming that everyone you disagree with is a russian troll is ridiculous.

[stonecutter357]

129. lol.

[Hekate]

160. Once you realize that the Calexit proposal is run by a guy with an office in Russia...

...none of this shit is either ridiculous or amusing.

[emulatorloo]

30. There are lots of conservatives and Republicans in CA n/t

[haveahart]

59. Rich and they make up a huge part of the 1%.

[Hekate]

161. Not necessarily

[Brother Buzz]

67. Um, did you know California has a lot of Blue Dog Democrats up in Sacramento?

[CaliforniaPeggy]

3. I hadn't heard about him till now...

I will certainly keep my eye on him.

Politico's write-up looks good.

[msongs]

5. another wall street insider one % er nt

[leftofcool]

6. Do we like 1%ers now?:

[Expecting Rain]

8. Wow, you guys are way ahead of me...

NOW we're supposed to love "millionaires and billionaires?"

And what's this kid's name?

This DEMOCRAT is sticking with one of the finest Senators to ever represent California.

[nbsmom]

142. Let's do the math, shall we?

I'm a Democrat, born and raised in CA. But I really think DiFi should gracefully bow out.

At 84 years of age, should she prevail in the primaries and stand for reelection in November (which, let's not forget, will be her first time through the ranked-choice voting process), she will be running as an 85-year-old woman for the Class 1 Senate seat previously held by another really old Senator, S.I. Hayakawa. (You may remember him, he was the one who made Alan Cranston look like a sprightly spring chicken.) Sure, she could prevail on name recognition alone, but what are the potential risks?

Unable to complete term
We've seen a lot of off-year electoral shenanigans in CA. It wasn't that long ago that Grey Davis lost his seat to a well-funded "Governator." And then you have a Repub appointing another Repub for at least the interim seat.

Nobody moves up among the Dem ranks
I find it fascinating that California, the very definition of diversity, was represented by two middle-aged Jewish women from the Bay Area for more than 20 years, up until January 3 of this year, when Kamala Harris was sworn in. Ironic, too, that Gavin Newsom (who has done much with his stand-in role as Lt. Governor) will likely face a really tough race against Villaraigosa, Chiang, maybe Eastin? That's because the statewide jobs like Governor and Senator are so infrequently vacant and it costs metric shit tons of money to run a statewide campaign.

What does she gain by continuing?
Maybe the aberration in the judicial hearing the other day -- "the dogma lives loudly within you" -- was a one-off. But maybe it's a sign of things to come. (Not disagreeing with her concern about the appeals judge, mind you. I just think that she expressed herself in an almost dog-whistle sort of way, which I found disturbing.)

It takes a millionaire to replace a millionaire
Since you're such a fan, I'm positive you know that our esteemed Senator and her hubby Richard Blum are worth at least $50 million (which makes her the eighth-wealthiest in the Senate) and I won't belabor the fact that she and the hubs have probably benefited from lots of Federal contracts over the years...

[Expecting Rain]

143. Sure, let's do the math.

Let's go through your points (not necessarily in the same order).

Nobody moves up among the Dem ranks
I might yield the point, if the point of the OP wasn't to promote a complete unknown in the Democratic Party and a political neophyte named Joseph N. Sanberg who I'd wager could not be identified by 1 CA Democrat in 100,000 (and that might be understating it). Sanberg isn't "in the ranks."


What does she gain by continuing?
The wrong question entirely. It's "what do we gain by her continuing?" and the answer to that is a great deal. Dianne Feinstein has proven her wisdom and leadership as a senior Senator and her experience and maturity are good for Democrats and the nation.

Unable to complete term
As you say, there a 3 Democrats (at least) who are contenders for the CA Governors race. The GOP doesn't have a chance in this race and the one-in-a-lifetime anomaly like Gary Davis recall is of such low odds of repetition that it doesn't present a factor against the upsides of Dianne Feinstein--including the risks of an open seat race.

It takes a millionaire to replace a millionaire
This one get a
If one comes from the economic-determinism wing of the party, why bother? Otherwise, this argument against Dianne Feinstein is tinged with the sort of populist demagoguery that turns off most CA Democrats

Sorry, I'm unconvinced.

There are too many good reasons to support our very fine senior Senator. She has my support!

[nbsmom]

144. "Populist demagoguery that turns off most CA Democrats" WHAT?

I have no idea what you're trying to say here. I'm kind of wondering what kind of CA Democrat YOU are. I think Kamala Harris's showing against Loretta Sanchez this past November speaks volumes as to the fallacy of your statement.

(I notice you didn't have an answer for the possible self-dealing instances for Senator Feinstein and her investment banker hubby.)

But don't take my word for it. Take a look at this recent L.A. Times opinion piece.
http://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/la-oe-meyerson-feinstein-run-20170731-story.html

Did you even happen to look up Sanberg's bona fides? Here's his website. He may not have the name recognition of Villaraigosa or Kevin De Leon, but he does have the bankroll, which is a fact of life if you're trying to get elected to represent this state the size of many countries. And he is actually playing for keeps, if he's gotten in the weeds on EITC.



If Senator Feinstein would please not run again, there several candidates (other than Sanberg) who would do very nicely:

- Adam Schiff
- Ted Lieu
- Eric Garcetti
- Tom Steyer
- David Hildebrand

TBH, I have found it ironic AF that this political/celebrity savvy state hasn't run someone with true name recognition (think George Clooney) to represent us in the Senate, as Minnesota did with Al Franken.

[Expecting Rain]

148. I'm the kind of Democrat who voted for Kamala Harris.

FYI, making snarky comments that question a forum member's affinity to the Democratic Party is against board rules and is especially galling to me as a person who started working for the party at 10 and has voted Democrat in every race and for every office since I've been eligible.

So please stop with the highly-insulting personal slanders.

First persnal attacks on Dianne Feinstein. Now personal attacks on me. You should re-think the way you operate.

[nbsmom]

156. Meaning you had the opportunity to vote for Loretta Sanchez and didn't

Tells you something. Maybe that you were ready for someone new. Bet you weren't concerned about losing Boxer's experience and leadership in the Senate, either. Thanks to Boxer's decision to retire gracefully, you were able to lean into the heady winds of change and look! You're already happy with your choice.

My essential point is just that: Why is DiFi not giving California voters the same opportunity, to select a new voice for California, that Senator Boxer did?

For what it's worth, my posts about Senator Feinstein (other than some allusions to her questionable/grey area business dealings concerning her hubby) and my replies to you have not been attacks at all, and I think you know this. So why are you claiming otherwise?

[Expecting Rain]

157. No. Both candidates were equally new in running for the office.

I was very sad to see Barbara Boxer go. I'm a big fan. It really pissed me off to see her get booed in Nevada. Remember that? Terrible!

Maybe, using your logic, it's time for voters in say...a tiny state in New England...have a chance for a new Senator? Are you for that?

You have tried to smear Dianne Feinstein and to suggest she and her husband are corrupt. They are clearly attacks and I mystified how you can claim otherwise?

And you attacked me by questioning if I was Democrats (life-long, thank you very much!) which is a violation of the TOS.

[clu]

162. thanks for sharing

[awesomerwb1]

91. Isn't Dianne Feinstein a very wealthy person as well?

If so, a lot of people seem to be ok with that.

[leftofcool]

7. Hope the new wealthy challenger will be able to do what DiFi just did

She just convinced the appropriations committee to restore funding to the Climate Change Scientists to the UN

[Hekate]

12. No one will ever be 100% -- I am just fed up with fools who cannot see what we will lose...

...if Senator Feinstein is primaried and defeated. It means the Dems enter the GE bloodied and weakened, and more likely to allow a Repub to gain the seat.

What people outside California often fail to understand is the sheer diversity of this place. We have more people than the country of Canada. We are on the cusp of a nonwhite majority. Many Asians trend Republican, not Democratic. We have swathes of very conservative people: I mean who do you think sends Dana Rhorabacher and Darell Issa to Congress year after year? We have some some very liberal Democrats indeed, as well -- but someone like Nancy Pelosi comes from a very liberal city indeed.

Our Senators reflect a lot of that. When liberal Dem. Barbara Boxer retired, we had not one challenger, but several good people lined up to fill a vacancy, and were lucky to get Kamala Harris (who some here have complained about for being insufficiently POC, when what she is is very mixed race). But her GOP opponents will be back, challenging DiFi with lots of money to back them up.

Diane Feinstein strikes some here as "too old" and "too moderate." But she is a thoroughly reliable Democrat who gets re-elected in this state year after year. People can certainly sound her out about retirement plans, because if she retires it will be like Boxer -- it will give a bunch of good Democrats a chance to run for a vacancy, rather than one spoiler trying to unseat one of our best Dem Senators.

My question would be: who among us is willing to lose that seat to a Repub in order to unseat Feinstein -- and why would that be?

[Expecting Rain]

14. Some outside CA might also be surprised that a "primary" doesn't...

mean what it used to mean.

Under CA's current election law the top 2 Primary finishers (regardless of party) advance to the General. In the election that replaced Barbara Boxer we saw 2 Democrats in the finals, Kamala Harris and Loretta Sanchez.

IMO running against Dianne Feinstein would be a great way to end any aspirations of a political career.

[comradebillyboy]

77. As a non-Californian I was kind of surprised

that Harris beat Sanchez. Shows how much I know about California politics.

[Hekate]

95. Loretta Sanchez's district is Orange County. In my opinion she is a solid Dem, but her constituency

...includes a lot of white conservatives and Vietnamese-Americans who trend conservative, in addition to Latinos, of which she is one.

She has to take care of her constituency. She would never pass the more extreme DUers' purity test.

My calculation is always this: do we want a Democrat holding that seat -- or not? Same with Diane Feinstein.

[comradebillyboy]

96. As a non Californian I had heard a lot about Loretta Sanchez

and nothing about Kamala Harris so I naturally assumed the more famous person would win.

[Hekate]

98. Kamala was our State DA, so ran for statewide office to get there before running for Senate

[comradebillyboy]

119. Harris looks like she has a lot of promise.

I'd like to see her do well. I'm kind of fond of pragmatic liberals.

[leftofcool]

21. We will most likely lose every seat we run for in 2018.

Every Democrat is too old, too out of touch, too much of a corporate shill, been around too long, is too compromising blah blah blah. Yet these same Dems get things done and along comes a 1%er we were told to hate to spoil things.

[Hekate]

23. Like I said: fools

[emulatorloo]

28. Well at least the "replace liberal Pelosi with a fresh-blooded conserva-Dem" fad is over.

[Hekate]

50. For now. Then some little group will start a hissy fit again. nt

[Voltaire2]

128. "Yet these same Dems get things done" - but we haven't been getting it done, that's the problem.

We've lost control. The party, nationally, is the weakest it has been since before FDR.

[Lucinda]

33. I had no idea that Harris was being attacked for her lineage

She has been a strong voice against Trumpy from day one.

This place makes me crazy...

[Hekate]

69. It was kind of random, you know?

Her dad is from Jamaica and her mom is from India. She is not bi-racial but multi-racial.

But this being America, where the media could never get a grip on Tiger Woods being half Thai and he finally gave up and just let them call him black, I think it was also the media that definitively decided Kamala Devi Harris is African American.

Or maybe, confronted with a row of "pick only one" boxes all her life, she assigned it to herself. I follow her on FB, and her posts are heavily weighted toward African American achievements.

I am an Irish-American, raised in a multi-ethnic culture where it was the norm to be multi-racial. At some point in my youth I realized that both cultural identity and race itself are malleable. (In 1968 a college roommate told me the dread secret of a friend of hers: he was an octoroon. I looked at this young man with the square Saxon face, blue eyes, and straight blond hair, and realized that traditional Southern attitudes toward race were 100% insane.) Kids where I grew up could reel off the family tree from Denmark to China and all of Polynesia with a grin.

Sorry to go on like this, but it is a pet peeve of mine. I tried to write last night but had to quit. I have been back on the Mainland for almost 40 years, and can still be taken by surprise, tho why I don't know. After all, in Hawai'i I was just another haole (Irish? Pfft), but in California was informed by an African American co-worker that I am an Anglo, which would make my Irish ancestors turn over in their graves. My husband was born a Jew in Belgium, raised a Jew in New York, and transmogrified into an Anglo in California. When I was on the County Affirmative Action Commission, a younger Latino said in an accusatory tone that all the members of a particular subcommittee except himself were "WASPs," but I laughed in his face. I said, "Wrong by definition. Two Jews, two Irish, and a Catholic will never be Anglo-Saxon Protestant."

[Lucinda]

87. My poor health is both a painful thing, and in many ways a blessing...I have lots of free time

to wander the internet, since I am restricted physically at the moment. I have been watching a lot of genealogy vids on youtube. One of the big things now is the ancestry DNA stuff and it's fascinating to see how people respond to where they came from, based on these reports. Some are delighted to find they are more "exotic" than expected, others horrified as they find the point where rape and oppression became a part of their story. I know we are seeing the growing pains as society becomes more multi-racial overall, but I'm getting weary of people using melanin as weapon or an excuse for vile behavior.

[TreasonousBastard]

46. Being from NY, I can see it clearly...

And we are not the only states with such a diversity of population, and enough people blind to it to cause trouble.

Last year we lost a good chance to take back a House seat in my district, thanks largely to a brutal primary with two excellent Democrats fighting it out. I dread next year, when we already have a whole crew taking a shot at that seat. There's something to be said for those old smoke-filled rooms.

We know about Feinstein, and we have no problem with you keeping her. After all, we have to deal with, and answer for, Schumer, who is also far from perfect, but nobody around here would dump him even if we could.

[wryter2000]

89. Preach it, sister

[democratisphere]

10. Had to check to make sure I was on the correct site.

Thought I had mistakenly ended up on "Democratic Undermine".

[Lucinda]

34. It sure feels that way from time to time.

We are pretty great in a crisis then the infighting starts.

[FiveGoodMen]

93. So, Feinstein is your idea of a good Dem?

[democratisphere]

120. Feinstein is a Dem. Bernie is not. The last thing Dems need to endorse

for political offices are more millionaires and billionaires. They don't give a sh't about the struggles of the masses.

[HarmonyRockets]

122. Try again

Diane Feinstein's net worth is over 41 million.

[democratisphere]

131. Sure, so let's perpetuate the status quo by replacing one millionaire with perhaps a billionaire.

Sounds pretty reverse progressive to me. Dems shouldn't be undermining Dems; no wonder we are losing to total jerks like drumpf.

[R B Garr]

11. LOL WALL STREET

[CloudsInMyCoffee]

13. She has had one for awhile

@David4SenateCA
His Act Blue is here https://secure.actblue.com/donate/davidforcalifornia

David for California


David Hildebrand is an unapologetic Democratic Socialist running to represent the residents of the State of California in the U.S. Senate. The son of a union carpenter, and a member of a union himself, he knows the value of organizing.

David was a Staging Location Director for Congressional District 6 on the Bernie Sanders campaign.

After the primary, he felt compelled to stay involved and continue the fight for a better future for workers, and after serious consideration, decided to run against Dianne Feinstein for U.S. Senate to represent the working people of California.

David supports ending Citizen's United, establishing a Single Payer Healthcare system that covers everyone, tuition-free universities and trade schools, strengthening union organization, raising the minimum wage to $15 an hour tied to inflation, and ending our involvement in foreign wars.

If successful in the upcoming elections, he will lead the charge for these, and other progressive policies at the federal level, and defend California against a Congress and Presidency determined to cut the social, economic, and environmental programs that American workers rely on.

We depend on your support, as we are rejecting Corporate donations and refuse to start a Super PAC. If you want true Working Class represent, join us and donate below.

[Expecting Rain]

15. Hildebrand sounds like a 2%er

As in he'll be lucky to get that portion of the vote.

This is DEMOCRATIC Underground?

[CloudsInMyCoffee]

16. Is he not a Dem?

Am I missing something? I thought he was, he has an Act Blue account and everything?

[Hell Hath No Fury]

18. He is a democratic socialist running as a Democrat.

I am a big fan of his.

[CloudsInMyCoffee]

20. Thank you for the confirmation!

From what I've read of him I like him, he knows what's up and the issues he supports are dead on the money

[Expecting Rain]

24. No where on his website does it say he's "running AS a Democrat"

I keep seeing Democratic Socialist (all caps indicating a proper noun).

And what with the "running as" thing anyway?

He does have the endorsement of 24 internet strangers, so maybe more like a 0.2%er.

Our party ought to look at our rules.

[Hell Hath No Fury]

17. David Hildebrand is already in --

He is very good on the issues -- it's time for DiFi to go -- he will be my choice for Senator.

http://www.davidforcalifornia.com/

[Demsrule86]

103. He will lose and hopefully be drummed out of politics...anyone that primaries a sitting Democrat

is dead to me...and this guy is not even a Democrats...screwel him and the elephant he rode in on...certainly not donkey friendly. I vote Democratic always.

[HarmonyRockets]

123. Can you please explain

why we aren't allowed to primary Democrats?

[Demsrule86]

135. Timing is everything...we have no branches of government...going after Dem seats instead of trying

to unseat Republicans is madness. We lose any Dems...especially in the senate...Trump and the GOP win it all. I do not understand how some can attack the Democratic Party when they are the only ones that can stop Trump and the GOP...putting in candidates unsuitable for the state such as the challenger to Manchin...is so stupid it makes my teeth ache. Primarying Tim Ryan in Ohio makes it more likely we will lose the seat, and it tells me that some have not learned the 2016 lesson...attack candidates from the right and the left, we lose. So, those who do this are enabling Trump and doing lasting damage to the Democratic Party. Such 'progressives' (so they say) are snatching defeat from a real chance at taking back the House in 18.

[SoCalNative]

22. Very unfortunate

People seem to forget all that Feinstein has done for California. She can go when SHE says it's time to go, not anyone else.

[ChubbyStar]

31. Ah No That Is Incorrect

She will go when people vote her out.

[comradebillyboy]

78. She won't be voted out. She will either

retire when she is ready or die in office.

[Expecting Rain]

25. This native son hasn't forgotten...

Nor do I expect many Californians have.

I'll work to secure her re-election. She's tops!

[emulatorloo]

26. It ever occur to y'all that she buttered up Trump so he'd be receptive to Chuck and Nancy?

[Expecting Rain]

27. No kidding. The logic of last week's smear campaign totally collapsed...

this week.

[Demsrule86]

104. Of course only those who want to attack Dems would find this to be a problem...kind of demonstrates

who they are as if we didn't know.

[Hekate]

163. Yes, it occured to me too, that she had an agenda based on moving Democratic ideas forward.

People are too quick to react.

[Expecting Rain]

36. I think you're spinning a false narritive that Dianne Feinstein is out of touch...

Since she clearly is not, and that she will win re-election with a lot of grass-roots DEMOCRATIC support.

[Expecting Rain]

38. No, that connected her with people who don't believe in undercutting American presidents

when they are dealing with brutal dictators who are evading UN resolutions and WMD inspections.

It was the right call in he moment.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

41. Oy vey

[Expecting Rain]

48. You seem to have reading comprehension issues. She, like HRC, voted to give then

President Bush an authorization of force resolution to show Saddam Hussein the had a stark choice if he continued to evade required UN inspections.

Voting for the resolution provided leverage and was the right action for a US Senator to have taken in the moment IMO. It was the pro-diplomacy position. And one taken to avoid war.

Enabling Saddam by undercutting President Bush by voting no, would have given aid and comfort to a guy responsible for the deaths of millions in a war he started with Iran, a guy who raped and looted Kuwait, and a guy with a record of using nerve gas against both Persians and his own Kurdish population.

Not dealing with Saddam wasn't a pro-peace position, it would have been appeasement IMO, and the force resolution was a pressure tactic that people like Feinstein hoped would avoid a war.

So she did what those with high-levels of foreign policy do. It was the correct move in the moment in my estimation.

[melman]

52. It was not the correct thing to do and here's why

Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld were determined to go to war. They were never not going to go to war. Everyone knew that.

[Expecting Rain]

55. Apparently Saddam didn't know that or he'd have complied with UN resolutions and avoided...

the war.

It was the hope of Democrats who voted for the authorization of force in Iraq to avoid a war as is clear in their contemporaneous statements to that effect.

[Ninsianna]

92. So the more dangerous act then was the AUMF that gave these war hungry

folks the freedom to fight terror wherever they wanted.

The only person who was pure on that score was Rep. Barbara Lee.

So why is this very incorrect thing overlooked, is it because of the people who gave those people that power, despite "everyone knowing they'd go to war"?

[melman]

121. Right

Because Sept 2001 and October 2002 were exactly the same and there wasn't a year of buildup in between.

It's obvious what you're getting at. Trying to make this about Sen. You Know Who is equal parts and

[Ninsianna]

125. I was making it about the only pure member of congress, Rep. Barbara Lee

She's the only one who has the standing to say anything, since she was the ONLY one who voted against the AUMF.

It's obvious that you don't really understand what I'm getting at, and that there seems to be some other agenda at play, with whichever senator you're fanboying.

It's actually all at the

It's weird how simple facts seem to bother people, just like a post about Israeli leaders also is all about Senator Pin Up or whatever.

Weird and kind of sad. Not healthy at all.

It's about the only pure congressperson, Rep. Lee no senator or any other Representative, since they ALL voted to do that thing you said was so evil, give war mongers who "everyone knew" were going to make war the authorization to do so.

Nothing else is factual, no matter how hard one wishes. Very funny though, thanks for laugh. Comedy is unintentional, I'm guessing.

[clu]

168. its a beautiful thing

[melman]

170. Nope

That's where you're wrong. I know exactly what game you're playing.


Not playing along. So sorry.

[Expecting Rain]

101. The feeling is mutual...

I assure you.

[clu]

164. at least i know who to ignore

not that i would set someone on ignore but jiminy

edit - I apologize for an ignorant reply - i don't even live in CA so there's a lot i can be wrong about, so i will resign to a little Wikipedia but yeah that vote was a no-brainer

[MrsCoffee]

116. No, I'm a Hillary fan, but we can't rewrite the vote that she has apologized for.

She laid out to Bush exactly how he could go to war by following the same path that her husband took. And she interrupted Sen. Byrd's anti-war speech to do so.

I love Hillary, but she was wrong on Iraq. I'm glad she owned up to that and apologized for it.

[Expecting Rain]

118. Senator Clinton made the reasons and her concerns very clear in a speech she made before she cast...

her vote based on the evidence she had at the time. The reasoning and aspirations to avoid a war stand up.

Democrats who authorized force were clear they wanted a diplomatic solution (not war) and calculated that a show of forse was the best way to get Saddam to comply with UN inspections.

The after-math of the war went very badly, and with hindsight most Democrats regretted the votes (but not necessarily the reasoning behind making those votes in the first place).

[oasis]

139. Feinstein, Clinton and many other Dems rightly believed in a UN remedy

to the Saddam problem. They never anticipated Bush/Cheney would toss weapons inspector, Hans Blix's team out of Iraq before they could prove Saddam had no WMD.

Feinstein, Clinton and Kerry were betrayed. These senators acted in good faith.

Feinstein should keep her senate seat as long as she feels she can serve the best interests of our nation.

If she chooses to retire because of health considerations, there's plenty of capable DEMOCRATS ready to do the job.

[Expecting Rain]

149. Correct. These leading Democrats, arguably our party's top 3

Foreign policy experts (2 of whom served as Sec. Of State) acted in good faith and made the decisions they felt best addressed the twin goals of getting Saddam to comply with UN resolutions and avoiding a war.

[Voltaire2]

130. "She, like HRC," - you started out ok, then it all went terribly wrong.

Voting for that mess was terribly wrong. It was participating in a war crime.

[NCDem777]

133. The correct move

would have been to stay out of it.

Odious as he was, he kept the gaggles of apes like ISIS in line.

If Saddam was viewed as a problem by other nations of the ME, then they should have put their people on the line.

[Expecting Rain]

64. Can you read?

Approving a use of force resolution was seen by many DEMOCRATS with foreign policy experience as the best way of avoiding a war and getting Saddam to comply with UN inspections. Read HRC statements of her position at the time she made her vote.

Deal with the reality of that position and not some faux-outrage and spin.

Nothing is less conducive to peace than US isolationism.

[melman]

40. Wow, that is some take

Pro-Iraq war, against 'undercutting' W. Evading resolutions, WMD inspections.


An alert would certainly result in removal for right wing talking points because that stuff is straight out of Sean Hannity.

But I hope the post stays. People should see this one. It is a doozy to say the least.

[Expecting Rain]

49. Our nominee had exactly the same position when she voted for the resolution.

It is instructive to read Hillary Clinton's words as she made her vote. She expresses very clearly her conflict as she did it (IMS calling it the hardest vote she ever took) but one made in the hopes that a show of resolve was the best way to avoid a war.

The alert treats are BS.

Isolationism is the surest path to war, which smart leaders like HRC and Dianne Feinstein (and this life-long Democrat) understand.

The incompetence of the Bush Admimistration in the aftermath is manifest and indefensible.

[Hell Hath No Fury]

62. Noob poster clearly --

...needs to stick around and actually LEARN something. Haven't heard that load of crap since the Bush Jr years.

[Expecting Rain]

68. No. A guy with an degree in International Relations from UC Berkeley...

who has been politically active as a DEMOCRAT his entire life.

Nice try anyway.

[BeyondGeography]

81. Dems who voted for IWR were doing nothing more than covering their ass

Last edited Fri Sep 8, 2017, 02:03 PM - Edit history (1)

if W.'s war turned out to be popular. They weren't thinking about inspections; there was no evidence supporting WMD at the time, certainly not enough to warrant sticking their necks out for IWR. No, they were protecting their post-9/11 hawkish bona fides, nothing more. It was the safe, expedient way to go. Classic scaredy-cat hair-splitting that bit them all. It may have cost Kerry the presidency and it certainly cost HRC the nomination in 2008. Just trying to add some balance to your presentation.

[HughBeaumont]

84. Good analysis.

"It was the safe, expedient way to go."

Thousands of families in several nations have less members because of the United States' purpose-void war hard-on, while defense-related corporations grinned lovingly.

[Expecting Rain]

86. Is DEMOCRAT bashing allowed on this forum?

The past two Democratic Secretaries of State (along with a majority of their then DEMOCRATIC colleagues) reasoned that the best way to meet the twin goals of avoiding a war and securing Saddam's compliance with UN resolutions was to authorize force as a means of leverage.

It wasn't a vote for war. It was a vote to avoid war.

Many/most/all? have come to regret the vote, as Bush clearly made a hash of things.

Ascribing the worst motives (and false ones) on leading liberal DEMOCRATS is an example the sort of smears that I don't believe belong on a forum designed to support DEMOCRATS.

[H2O Man]

147. legalize Lonnie Anderson's hair

Obey Dick Cheney.

[Expecting Rain]

172. Not at all, and you are simply engaging in Democrat bashing based on fiction

and slander.

Not good.

The leading foreign policy Democrats in the Senate supported the authorization of force out of principle and the desire to meet the twing olas of foring compliance with UN resolutions and avoiding a military conflict.

What do you keep attacking major Democratic figures by ascribing false motives to their actions???

This is a form designed to support Democrats, or did you miss that?

[clu]

169. was there a critical thinking class in that syllabus

[Expecting Rain]

171. You best. And some really challenging courses in formal logic.

That's part of why reading this forum and seeing so many on the left fringe engaging in illogical demogoguery and attacking Democratic leaders for unsound reasons so difficult.

For some ideology trumps reasoning. It is a problem that makes unity difficult.

[ck4829]

43. Wow... We really do have a cult of the executive branch in this country

[demmiblue]

63. Another... WOW!

I am not surprised, though.

[Expecting Rain]

65. Why should you be surprised?

It was the position of the majority of the Democrats in the Senate that voting in favor was the best way to avoid a war.

We all know how things turned out, and many came to regret their vote.

[leftstreet]

66. Holy crap

[HughBeaumont]

79. HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA OMFG . . . .

Bush LIED to the world and to Congress!! It was proven that his Administration committed a war crime in the invasion of a sovereign nation that threatened not one American citizen NOR attacked us on 9-11.

Rumsferatu and his bunch looked for any excuse to tie 9/11 to Iraq. This isn't conspiracy, it's documented fact.

Bush and Cheney were war criminals. There was no reason to approve this invasion whatsoever.

[H2O Man]

146. comic genius

[LanternWaste]

74. Any objective evidence to support that claim?

"he's out of touch with her constituents..."

Any objective evidence to support that claim?

Or simply another biased allegation justified as a rational premise?

[Warren DeMontague]

99. Yeah, like I said, the IWR.

I'm guessing you're not a California voter. I was, in 2002.

[Demsrule86]

105. She won't retire and she won't lose and all the money that could have gone to unseat a Republican

will be wasted as well as time...we need Dianne in this terrible situation for our party. She was probably as I and another poster pointed out buttering up Trump for the deal Nancy and Chuck got out of the orange menace. Honestly some are ready to pounce on any Democrat...this is how we know who is really with us and who is not...I am not saying that you are in the category.

[Warren DeMontague]

108. I'm not a California voter, but I was for a long time.

And I remember when DiFi voted for the Iraq War. Barbara Boxer did not.

California will be fine, whether or not she has a challenger. The primary setup in CA is such that the top two vote getters go to the GE, regardless of party.

Like I said, it's time for her to retire, in my estimation. But if she is challenged by a strong Democrat, all that means is that the two choices in the GE will both be Democrats. I don't see this as terribly damaging to our Party, myself.

[Demsrule86]

112. Lot's of people voted for the war...so I don't care about it ...Kerry voted for it. Dems were lied

to also. It is a waste of money and time and it makes my blood boil...not a dime for Move On because of Tim Ryan also.

[Warren DeMontague]

113. And lots of people- like Senator Boxer- DIDN'T vote for it.

I was out in front of the Civic Center multiple times, protesting.

The point is, DiFi is out of touch and it's nothing new. People can do what they want but I'm glad she's getting some pressure, and a different Democrat in that Senate Seat could very well be an improvement.

Either way, we don't know for sure that she's running again, so it's moot at this point.

[Demsrule86]

137. And a big who cares...I have seen the selective bashing on this site and other.s.. I am not

interested in bashing Democrats. Feinstein is a powerful leader and we need her.

[nocalflea]

35. Invaluable experience on the hill. ..

knows her Senate colleagues inside and out, invaluable contacts off the hill... not gonna throw that away for a "fresh face". Never underestimate DiFi , she's tough as nails. She has my vote, again.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

42. Hillary won CA by over thirty points.

No Republican will win CA in the era of Trump, lol.

[ProgressiveValue]

44. I'm surprised at the DiFi hate.

She has been one the strongest supporters of gun control in the entire country. Every year she introduces her federal assault weapon ban even though she knows the chances are grim. She doesn't stop fighting.

[Demsrule86]

106. It is Democratic party hate. Some look for every excuse to bash Democrats and the Party..

It seems that some went a bit to far.

[HarmonyRockets]

124. Maybe we just want better Democrats?

[Demsrule86]

134. hahah...at this point I just want Democrats...and by enabling the election of Republicans, you don't

get 'better democrats"...you get right wing rule...and it is rather arrogant for some to think they can determine what a 'better Democrat' is...no matter what you say...the pouncing at any chance...is Democrat hatred...but apparently the tolerance for the Repubs is endless...if one attacks the only party that can stop Trump...the Democratic Party....I have to wonder at the motivation for doing something like this when we have nothing and instead of going after Repub seats, safe Dems seats are endangered with useless ,stupid primaries.

[aikoaiko]

132. That's not a good reason to support her. The AWB was a joke of a law.

There can be effective gun control laws, but the AWB was not one of those laws.

[clu]

167. i'll concede a little to the right about fancy shiny guns

it is nice to have a cool one..... so long as they come with better background psych review

[mcar]

45. "We?"

[wryter2000]

53. Bingo

Because "we" really want to give up a safe Senate seat.

[kcr]

47. Hillary gives speeches to Wall St and she's evil. But this guy actually from Wall St is somehow ok?

Ridiculous. A Wall St Investor Socialist. Now I've heard it all.

[NurseJackie]

56. LOL! That takes the cake, doesn't it? Double-standards layer-cake and hypocrisy-flavored frosting.

Ridiculous. A Wall St Investor Socialist. Now I've heard it all.

It's almost funny... except it's not.

[haveahart]

60. But he ain't no damn woman!@

[comradebillyboy]

80. Well he is a man after all....nt

[JI7]

85. People get more upset over women . Debbie wasserman schultz has the least amount of wealth

Among congress members. Yet she is seen as some evil powerful force.

And Feinstein herself is always attacked for having money.

And beyonce and oprah but no complaints about Jay lenos car collection.

[Demsrule86]

107. It is hilarious really.

[JI7]

166. this guy is a Man , Hillary and Feinstein are women .

[haele]

51. I thought DiFi was thinking of retirement. She is in her mid 80's...

She'll be 90 at the end of a next term, if she runs again.

I'm thinking this might be more of a potential replacement.

Haele

[gopiscrap]

57. good at the very least,

move her to the left some!!!

[MineralMan]

61. Oh Boy! Oh Boy!

Finally, someone to replace one of the Senate's most powerful and effective Democrats. The people of California must be dancing in the streets over this news!



Wait...who is this "we" to whom you refer?

[Demsrule86]

72. The people that did this should join the GOP Party it is who they are...this only helps the GOP.

I have to believe that those that encourage this especially some who are relatively new may not be on our side.

[MineralMan]

73. Well, they're young and inexperienced, I guess.

Impatient, too, it seems. Grasping at straws that may be much shorter than they appear at first is what it looks like to me. Throwing the baby out with the bathwater, cutting off noses to spite their faces, and cliches like those.

My bet is that none of them could tell you three important things that Diane Feinstein has accomplished in her career in the Senate. But, here's this new guy. He must be better, right? Sure. Let's toss out one of the most senior Democrats in the Senate and replace her with some guy who has never held public office. That oughta fix things real fast...

Feh!

[Demsrule86]

75. Yeah they would have to be either inexperienced, trolls, or just plain stupid.

An experienced Senator like Feinstein is worth her weight in gold. She has forced the judiciary into investigating Trump...and despite these folks here who think California is a progressive utopia ...it is not. She could lose her seat. There are conservatives in California. And we have seen first hand what a divisive bitter primary can do to a candidate multiple times.

[MineralMan]

76. I feel certain that Senator Feinstein is quite capable of

defending her seat in the Senate, somehow. No worries on that count.

However, the call for instant fixes for long-term problems I keep seeing here are worrisome.

[Demsrule86]

88. That is my issue...I know that single payer isn't coming anytime soon...so when those who are not

looking at this realistically realize that is the case then what? We will be fortunate to save the ACA and all this single payer stuff is silly. It can't pass now or in the future without a 60 vote Democratic majority in the Senate, a Democratic majority in the House and a Democratic president. We must have all three to even have a shot...and not all progressives want single payer so we probably need more votes.

[Eliot Rosewater]

154. Thanks for reminding people how seniority works.

Am I a huge fan of Dianne? Nope, but she is a brilliant politician and a liberal Democrat.

Not as liberal as me, but almost nobody is. And she is way better than anyone else I can see capable of running and winning.

If we can put new blood in who know what they are doing and do it without harming the party or risk losing a seat, then we can talk about doing that in specific cases. But seems to me the "progressive" bunch see the Dianne's and even you and me as the enemy.

We are not only not the enemy, we are the party members who votes in every election, keeps up with who does what and why. And as a result we know more than most of them do what it is we dont like about this or that politician, but we also know they are vastly better than the alternative.

[Gothmog]

94. I was also wondering about this

[Madam45for2923]

153. Please don't miss this OP on the same topic:

https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=9553712

[Demsrule86]

71. May this 'challanger' and those in instigated this in a year where Trump owns it all... go

fuck themselves. I will look up the group so I can make sure to never vote for any of their candidates or send them money. This is completely stupid.

[haveahart]

82. When you say "progressive" I say "depressive."

[Not Ruth]

83. May challenge Feinstein means may do nothing

[Autumn]

97. It will be interesting to see what the voters in California will do here.

[Demsrule86]

109. Clearly they will bury the challenger...a so called socialist wall street guy...I can hear the ads

now...it will be hilarious.

[Autumn]

110. It's their Senate race.

[Demsrule86]

111. I am against primarying any sitting Democrat when we have nothing...so any group that does so

is dead to me. I give money to those groups I like...I just stopped with Move On because of Tim Ryan.

[Autumn]

114. I liked Boxer and I like Feinstein. I'm not a Californian so it's not my choice.

[Demsrule86]

136. Nor mine, but I will send the party money and Feinstein...Move on...not one dime ever again.

[Autumn]

138. I shitcaned Move on years ago.

[Demsrule86]

140. You were right.

[Autumn]

141. Move on was created to get people to move past a corrupt supreme court installing Bush as president.

An act that changed the course of the world and never should have been tolerated. Fuck em, I never moved on

[Demsrule86]

145. I agree and not they will help elect folks worse than Bush probably.

It makes me sad to see such deluded groups.

[clu]

173. moveon backed sanders against the DNC backed candidate

and their support led to a lot of free good publicity for a progressive platform. what should be a high water mark reference point to chart our collective political voyage is instead getting hair-splint to death from what appear to be a few millennials. for they know not what they speak

[Demsrule86]

174. That is a very sore point for me as we lost that election. And now we have Trump.

Move on is dead to me.

[clu]

175. the implication seems to be that it's sanders fault

which is completely wrong

[Demsrule86]

177. If you say so...I have my own opinion.

[Madam45for2923]

150. nbsmom hello! Many q's here for you but haven't seen you respond! LOL! California resident or nah?

Last edited Sun Sep 10, 2017, 03:52 PM - Edit history (1)

nbsmom
0. Looks like we have a progressive challenger for Dianne Feinstein in CA

Wealthy entrepreneur may challenge from the left.

http://www.politico.com/story/2017/09/07/progressive-challenger-emerges-feinstein-242472

[Madam45for2923]

152. I edited to show the whole name of the State of California.

[Willie Pep]

158. I am not from California so Democrats from that state can vote however they like.

But I do worry about the possible development of a left-wing version of the Tea Party. The Tea Party cost the GOP two Senate seats that I can think of right off the top of my head: Delaware (Christine O'Donnell) and Indiana (Richard Mourdock) and we don't have the demographic advantages that Republicans have where in some states they can run Tea Party crazies and still possibly win.

California might be a somewhat better place for left-wingers challenging incumbents but this might be a bad strategy in other areas like West Virginia where Justice Democrats (most of whom likely live outside of the state) are supporting a challenger to Joe Manchin. Still, I would hate to see Feinstein lose in a primary then have the GOP cook up a moderate Republican to beat whoever replaces her as the nominee in the general. Republicans would definitely consider that strategy if they see that Feinstein might lose in the primary. You have to support a primary challenger who is electable in the general election.

[brooklynite]

176. Actually, you have a lot of choices...

Topher Brennan (D) - Software Engineer & Ex-Teacher
Pat Harris (D) - Attorney
David Hildebrand (D) - Legislative Analyst & Sanders Campaign Activist
John "Stuttering John" Melendez (D) - Television Writer & Radio Personality
Steve Stokes (D) - Businessman & '14 US Rep. Candidate

But since Feinstein already has $3.6 M cash on hand, you might want to thin the herd and start searching under the couch cushions for loose change.