Feinstein: 'Negative dividends' of contest: The Swamp
The Swamp
Posted May 8, 2008 8:00 AM
The Swamp

by Don Frederick

Sen. Dianne Feinstein of California was an early and stout supporter of Hillary Clinton's presidential bid.

Dianne Feinstein

Might Feinstein's latest comments be a harbinger of the feedback Clinton now can expect from many backers for whom politics is a full-time occupation?

The Los Angeles Times' Janet Hook trolled Capitol Hill for assessments from various Democratic lawmakers on the state of their party's presidential race and reports that Feinstein signaled that, at the least, Clinton needs to provide a renewed rationale for remaining a candidate.

"I have great fondness and great respect for Sen. Clinton, and I'm very loyal to her," Feinstein said. "That said, I'd like to talk with her and get her view on the rest of the race and what the strategy is" for proceeding.

The question, Feinstein continued, is whether Clinton "can get the delegates that she needs."

She added, perhaps most ominously for Clinton: "I think the race is reaching the point now where there are negative dividends from it, in terms of strife within the party."

Feinstein said she placed a call to Clinton the other day, and expects to talk to her soon about the campaign.

Don Frederick writes for Top of the Ticket, the L.A. Times political blog. Photo of Dianne Feinstein, AP.

Digg Delicious Facebook Fark Google Newsvine Reddit Yahoo


The fact is neither Hillary nor Obama will have the delegates to win. I keep hearing how Demoncrats say they want every vote to count. Yet, they don't want the remaining primaries to count and they want to disenfranchise the voters in Michigan and Florida. As usual, Democrats only want the votes to count when it fits with their agenda and prefer voter fraud to actual honest elections.

Here are some results from the Rasmussen Poll for Johnny D and Brucie to accuse the "liberal media" of spreading:

"Among all voters nationwide, McCain is viewed favorably by 49% and unfavorably by 47%. (see recent daily favorable ratings). Obama’s numbers are now a bit better than McCain’s—51% favorable and 46% unfavorable. That’s the first time since March 10 that Obama’s favorable ratings have been higher than McCain’s by even a single point. For Clinton, the reviews are a bit less flattering--46% favorable and 51% unfavorable.

The Rasmussen Reports Balance of Power Calculator shows Democrats leading in states with 200 Electoral Votes. The GOP has the advantage in states with 189. When “leaners” are added, the Democrats lead 260 to 240 (see summary of recent state-by-state results). Data from Rasmussen Markets gives Democrats a 60.5% chance of winning in November."

Now Obama has a better favorable rating than McCain.

And the campaign against McBush has not even started yet!!!!

I liked Feinstein due to her work and voting record. When I wrote to her about candidates she said something about law does not allow her to endorse them.

She lost my vote for re-election when she endorsed Clinton. I was not considering Hillary due to the war in Iraq. To paraphrase: violence to women anywhere is violence to women everywhere. Hillary turned a deaf ear to the Iraqi ladies who came to the USA asking for her help. She shed no tears for the lives of innocent children.

She now claims "we acted on faulty intelligence" and later "this is George Bush's war". To the wives, mothers, daughters, sisters and female troops themselves, "oops, made a mistake, let me see if I can get it right with going into Iran" is not good enough presidential material for me.

In addition, Feinstein should be aware of the Clinton fraud trial in Los Angeles. Many voters simply do not want Bill's "buy one, get one free" return to their 8 years of scandals back in DC.

Clinton needs to focus on attacking McCain and nothing else. Unless she can focus all of her energy on attacking McCain then she needs to be shut down and pulled out. If she starts attacking Obama or focuses on trying to rejigger the DNC, etc., then she's doing nothing but harm to herself, the Democratic party, America.

As usual, Democrats only want the votes to count when it fits with their agenda and prefer voter fraud to actual honest elections.

Posted by: John D | May 8, 2008 8:50 AM

No our party IS running an HONEST election. It is called PLAYING BY THE R-U-L-E-S. The legislatures of FL and MI disenfranchised their own voters by moving their primary dates ahead, which is CLEARLY and unequivocally against the rules now they must pay the price.

You want fair and honest? Then you play the game by the rules that ALL PARTIES agreed to BEFORE the race even started. You seriously want to tell me you want MI delegates to count when Sen Obama's name was NOT EVEN ON THE BALLOT? That is what you call fair? An election with only 1 person that is still in the race on the ballot? How do you justify that as democracy ?

Furthermore if we gave Sen Clinton her split of the delegates and popular vote she STILL WOULD BE LOSING BY ALL MEASURES (not too glib about that popular vote now huh Hill ?). Fair and honest is not changing the rules at the end of the game to favor you because you are losing, that is the mark of a coward and a liar......seeing which corner this is coming from i cant say that i am suprised.

Post a comment

(Anonymous comments will not be posted. Comments aren't posted immediately. They're screened for relevance to the topic, obscenity, spam and over-the-top personal attacks. We can't always get them up as soon as we'd like so please be patient. Thanks for visiting The Swamp.)

Please enter the letter "o" in the field below: