Feinstein breaks home-state endorsement rule to spurn Kamala Harris and back Biden

[brooklynite]

Washington Examiner

Almost all the senators in the 2020 Democratic presidential field enjoy the support of their fellow home state Democratic senators, but California Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., broke that mold with her endorsement of former Vice President Joe Biden over her fellow Californian, Sen. Kamala Harris.

Feinstein told the Washington Examiner Tuesday that she feels more loyal to Biden than Harris.

“I’ve known Joe Biden for 20 years. When he was chairman of the Judiciary Committee, he made me the first woman. We have a longstanding relationship that dates way back. I love Kamala, I appreciate her, but she has known about this for some time. But that’s what I’m going to do. I feel very loyal to him," Feinstein said.

[uawchild]

1. Diane Feinstein is 85 years old

She was born in 1933.

Having work with Joe and being of that same, shall we say, senior generation of Democratic leadership, it's understandable why she prefers Biden over Harris.

[crazytown]

2. Old skool has it's place

DiFi channeling a little LBJ



Murkowski sided with the Dems against Kavanaugh.

[uawchild]

5. great pic! n/t

[DownriverDem]

3. Why are you

an ageist?

[uawchild]

6. Why I feel Biden and Sanders are too old

to best represent our party as nominee in 2020.

Glad you asked, I have been posting about this all over the place and welcome the opportunity to explain my view here again:

Our younger candidates like Buttigieg, Booker, Harris, O'Rourke, Klobuchar are DECADES younger than either Biden or Sanders.


I feel that Biden, at age 76, and Sanders, at age 77, are both too old to best represent the party as our nominee in 2020. We have a slew of exceptional and well qualified candidates in the prime of their lives and I hope that voters get behind them and select one as our nominee.

Why? The rigors of being president. it ages everyone that holds the office 10 years. We have all seen that. Biden and Sanders will BOTH be in their 80's at the end of their first term if elected. They will be in there late EIGHTIES at the end of their second term.

Not only are there the usual physical health concerns about men in their 80's in high stress jobs, but AGE RELATED COGNITIVE DECILNE is a real and and well studied fact. Research shows that men between ages 65-70 experience about a 10% decline in fluid cognitive abilities. This decline continues thru the 70 age range.

Don't think this matters? Looking at society at large:

The average age of a CEO in a Fortune 500 company is 59.

The mandatory retirement age of a General in the military is 64 with a few exceptions to stay on until age 68.
(note: was 62-64, updated to current regulations here)

The average tenure for CEO's and generals are both about 10 years, corresponding to ages 54-64 for CEOS and 54-64 for Generals.

Think about that, complex organizations like Fortune 500 companies want and the Military DEMANDS that there leadership serve only from ages 55-65 roughly speaking.

The average age of all 44 U.S. presidents who have taken office was just over 55 years old until tRump took office as the oldest ever at age 70. (President Obama was 48 years old and served until he was 55). The presidency is a grueling job and prematurely ages everyone that holds that office, some people say by 10 years roughly. They all exhibit the signs of premature aging when they leave office.

Biden and Sanders are BOTH over a DECADE older than the 65 year retirement age Wall Street and the Military consider reasonable. And that's even before their first term as president even starts.

So, in closing, thanks again for giving me the opportunity to explain why I feel both are simply too old to best represent the party as our nominee in 2020. That's why I hope voters get behind one of the excellent younger candidates that are running.

Cheers!

[George II]

8. Some of those lower "averages", like CEOs and Generals are because....

CEOs have amassed enough money to retire comfortably, and Generals (along with virtually all military personnel) can retire after 20 years at full benefits and can go on to other highly productive careers.

The fact that each group spend about 10 years in their positions contradicts your premise, neither Biden nor Sanders have spent a single day as President, and if either is elected they won't spend more than eight years in that occupation.

[uawchild]

12. 64 is the MANDATORY retirement age for Generals

Some exceptions are made to extend that to 68. (note: old info was 62-64, updated to be current)

C'mon man.

Fortune 500 companies and the military don't appoint 78 year old people to START their tenure.

In 2020 Biden will be 78 and Sanders 79 years old. That would be at the START of possible 8 year terms.

They would be 87 and 88 years old in their last years in office.

Point out an 87 year old General for me.

Thanks for helping really make this point: I feel Biden and Sanders are both too old to best represent our party as the 2020 nominee.

[oasis]

17. Hyman Rickover (1900-1986) retired from Navy at 82. Full admiral. nt

[uawchild]

20. Mandatory retirement ages, 64-68

(a)General Rule.—
Unless retired or separated earlier, each regularcommissioned officer of the Army, Navy, Air Force, or Marine Corps serving in a general or flag officer grade shall be retired on the first day of the month following the month in which the officer becomes 64 years of age.
(b)Exception for Serving in O–9 and O–10 Positions.—In the case of an officer serving in a position that carries a grade above major general or rear admiral, the retirement under subsection (a) of that officer may be deferred—
(1) by the President, but such a deferment may not extend beyond the first day of the month following the month in which the officer becomes 68 years of age; or
(2) by the Secretary of Defense, but such a deferment may not extend beyond the first day of the month following the month in which the officer becomes 66 years of age.


https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/10/1253

Obviously, the military changed it's policy on allowing flag officers to serve past ages 64-68.

I feel that Rickover's seminal role in establishing our "nuclear navy" might be one reason why he was allowed to stay on until 82.
Perhaps he stayed on in an emeritus-like position until age 82, in any case the current policy is ages 64-68 MAXIMUM.

[crazytown]

11. Retirement age at Wall Street?

Someone should tell Warren Buffett.

[uawchild]

18. Excellent point, Warren buffet is 88. lets look closer...

Last edited Wed May 8, 2019, 04:16 PM - Edit history (2)

Buffett has been the chairman and largest shareholder of Berkshire Hathaway since 1970.

He founded the company. And is the third richest man in the world with a net worth of 89 billion dollars.

Seriously, I think that might just have a little influence on why he is still on as chairman at age 88.
When you own a large hunk of a company, like Trump does, you get to call the shots and stay on longer it seems.

But Fortune 500 companies are not going out and hiring 88 or even 78 year old CEO's.

The Military MAKES all its generals retire ate age 64 with some exceptions staying on until 68.

I feel that ignoring advanced age as a factor in selecting our nominee would be a mistake.

Cheers!

[crazytown]

21. Buffett's tenure has more do do with consistent returns

[NYMinute]

23. This is the third time I am seeing this exact post repeated

[highplainsdem]

26. You're welcome to your opinion. Fortunately most Democrats apparently disagree with it,

or Biden and Sanders wouldn't be leading in most polls.

[uawchild]

37. time will tell

it's very early in the primary process.

The voters have the final say.

Until then, our opinions are just that, our opinions.

Cheers

[highplainsdem]

29. And since you worry about possible cognitive decline, we should consider that Booker played football

and brain damage from playing football is also "a real and and well studied fact." And it typically shows up at a fairly young age.

Of course, it doesn't affect everyone who played football.

Just as aging doesn't cause cognitive decline in everyone.

[uawchild]

34. You do realize Biden was a football star?

You are right football and brain injury is a real and well studied fact. But let's not single out Booker, OK?

Biden played football at the high impact positions of halfback and wide receiver.

Biden attended the Archmere Academy in Claymont[19] where he was a standout halfback/wide receiver on the high school football team; he helped lead a perennially losing team to an undefeated season in his senior year.[16][20]

Joe earned his bachelor's in 1965 from the University of Delaware, with a double major in history and political science,[24] graduating with a class rank of 506 out of 688.[25] His classmates were impressed by his cramming abilities,[21] and he played halfback with the Blue Hens freshman football team.[20]

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

So yes, lets examine all factors, including age related cognitive decline, when we select the person to best represent our party as nominee in 2020.

Thanks for the discussion.

[highplainsdem]

38. Yes, but Biden's well past the age when football-related brain injuries show up.

So I think we can rule that out in his case.

I'm trying to make you realize that older people, just like younger ones, should be considered as individuals.

Not doing so IS ageist.

[uawchild]

39. So is Booker. You brought up football, not me. ;)

But I agree when you say this:

I'm trying to make you realize that older people, just like younger ones, should be considered as individuals.


Of course I agree with that, I am saying I feel we should consider the effects of advanced age on the two oldest individuals that want to be our nominee in 2020.

I have always said let's see how EVERYONE does in the debates and on the campaign trail.

My opinion is that both Biden and Sanders just don't seem as sharp to me as they did 10 years ago. Studies say that might very well be due to age related cognitive decline.

Voters will watch the debates, listen to the candidates talk on the issues and make up their own minds. I just want them to consider the implications of an 85 year old president.

As always, thank you for engaging in an actual discussion with me. I appreciate the civility.

Cheers.

[highplainsdem]

42. Actually, CTE symptoms don't always show up before age 50, Booker's age. That said,

I don't think he shows any signs of it and hope he never does. That, or any type of cognitive decline. I admire Booker and think he's brilliant.

I agree -- we need to see how everyone does in the debates.

[LisaM]

33. But, life expectancy is going up and people are retiring later.

I actually personally prefer Harris to Biden, but I respect DiFi for being loyal to someone who treated her well while she was in office.

Anyway, there's more than 20 candidates now, we know if will sift out, and so this is relatively meaningless.

[Skya Rhen]

9. Some people believe that it's cute to be an ageist but it is a form of bigotry and I can't stand it.

Everyone has a parent or grandparent yet the voluminous disrespect that I see on social media towards older people is so blatant, nasty and heartless.

I can only hope that they, themselves, do not mistreat the older people in their lives and I hope that they are blessed enough to be able to have as long a life as the ones that they scorn...

[BannonsLiver]

19. +1

Being insufferably smug is also apparently viewed as desirable by some as well. In either case it’s not a good look no matter how long winded the word salad justifications are.

[ehrnst]

22. It's not ageist or scornful to look at the physical and mental stresses of the job of POTUS

and understand that for most - there are exceptions - age related mental and physical issues start to appear at around age 70. Women later than men, but this is a 24/7 job where decisions must be made quickly, counsel must be sought thoughtfully, and long days are the rule, not the exception.

I love and respect my parents and grandparents, but I don't think any of them are up for those challenges.

I will make a distinction between the social media portray of older people by younger people and a thoughtful evaluation of older candidates' stamina and mental agility for being at the helm of the United States of America.

[George II]

44. My mother was showing signs of dementia in her early 80s, my father was sharp as a tack...

....the last time I saw him at age 87.

A lot of it has to do with how busy people are with their brains as they get older.

[zipplewrath]

28. Have you read the constitution?

You realize there are age limits for adults written write in the document.

[redstatebluegirl]

30. +1000

[Politicub]

15. You can comment on age -- old and young and in-between -- without being prejudiced

If someone were to say that people above a certain age should be barred from running, then he's being ageist.

But if someone says that they think someone younger has a better grasp of issues that are important to them, that's not being ageist. It may or may not be true, but it's not condoning discriminatory behavior.

Do you understand the difference now?

[spooky3]

24. It is not ageist if the "someone" in your example is referring to a particular individual

and basing his/her statement on something that individual has actually done.

It is ageist if "someone" is referring to a broad group of individuals segregated by age. The same would be true if "someone" said that men (or women) have a better grasp of issues...but not if "someone" said that Buttigieg or Warren had a better grasp of issues than did other candidates.

[still_one]

48. You have a real problem with your discriminatory ageist posts that you keep spewing. Feinstin and

Biden have a relationship from their work together in the Senate

It has nothing to do with the "SENIOR GENERATION"

Feinstein and Harris also get along quite well, and they both are MY SENATORS

Being critical of people because you disagree with them on issues is one thing, but being critical of someone because they are older than YOU like, is a form of prejudice

[DownriverDem]

4. Gee could it be

she wants to back a winner? Biden/Harris would be a formidable ticket!

[George II]

7. When did this become a "rule"? Maybe in the eyes of right-wing Washington Examiner....

....to take a shot at a Democrat.

In the past there have been Senators who endorsed candidates other than their own-state Senator.

[Demit]

10. Do you have examples?

The story says there's only one other senator running without the support of a home-state Democratic senator, Kirsten Gillibrand. Except Chuck Schumer hasn't endorsed another candidate, he said he's not endorsing anyone.

What senators have endorsed candidates other than their home-state senator in the past?

[Jose Garcia]

14. Patrick Leahy endorsed Clinton in 2016

https://www.vpr.org/post/however-vermont-votes-leahy-says-his-superdelegate-vote-clintons#stream/0

[George II]

16. Patrick Leahy endorsed Hillary Clinton in early 2016

[Demit]

36. Thanks. Though that's possibly partially explained by Sanders not being a longtime Democrat,

only registering as one when he has to, and Clinton being a Democrat all the time.

[Politicub]

13. Bless her heart

Whoever makes her feel more comfortable, I guess.

[Honeycombe8]

25. Oh, dear. Well, she owes him. So I guess it makes sense.

Personally, I don't think I would've voted to re-elect her, if I lived in CA. But I don't.

[saljr1]

31. Joe is going to have a hard time getting thru the Democratic Primary

There are so many good candidates. JMHO

[Demsrule86]

41. I think Joe is doing just fine.

He is a great candidate and can win. Much as I like Elizabeth Warren, she will not win a general. And Trump must go...three states decide the presidency...PA, MI and WI.

[still_one]

32. Sorry OP, regardless of who she does or does not endorse the Washington examiner

as a source is bad form pushing hyperbolic words that distort the story, implying an antagonism between Harris and Feinstein which is a lie, and ignored the long Senate relationship Biden and Feinstein have

Hyperbole hoping to divide Democrats. Won’t happen

[demmiblue]

35. +1

[Hortensis]

40. Agree. There is no rule and this is a dishonest hit on both women.

From a RW rag and no doubt meant to appeal especially to readers who don't like women in power, and of course those who don't like Democrats.

Notably, the owner supports groups like the extreme right hate group, The Family Research Council (FRC) which really doesn't like women or Democrats.

Imo, an unfortunately trashy source and post.

[NurseJackie]

45. Thank you! We think alike.

[Nanjeanne]

43. That's a shame. I think Kamala Harris could use a boost. But then, not sure Feinstein is someone who

could give it to her anyway.

[StarfishSaver]

46. I wasn't aware that there's a "home-state endorsement rule"

Maybe because there isn't one?

[KayF]

47. that's a pretty serious rule

I think it carries the death penalty.