Clarifications aside, she should have known better than to make a statement that was bound to piss off more than half the country

who are ready to get pissed off at anything that confirms their bias.

God forbid she clarify when people misunderstand, or simply pile on.

I can't imagine why she made the statement in the first place. I understand the clarification. I am just surprised a seasoned politician would say something that was guaranteed to upset so many in the first place.

politicians are human.

I think she was being ironic, and it was lost on a lot of people in a very emotional climate.

She could be called out for not predicting that older women in politics are particular targets, sure.

And we've seen enough of trump to know he's not changing and won't get any fucking better.

Why doesn't she see that?

Other Pols don't have much to lose piling on to get their own name in the media, because she's at the end of her career.

And the piling on of older women politicians is very much a trend.

Last edited Fri Sep 1, 2017, 06:06 PM - Edit history (1)

When someone shows you who they are, believe them.

— Maya Angelou

We know who trump is.

states that he is "looking forward to to working" with Trump, there is no such feeding frenzy, or asking if he's crazy.

Sheez. I thought this was a forum for people who support Democrats.

"Establishment" in the very most awful worstest way. so while I was disgusted, I was not shocked.

Not good enough.

Two, one to put the bulb in and the other to primary the first one for either turning the bulb too fast to the left or too slow.

Damn straight.

https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/11/bernie-sanders-donald-trump/508007/

had the guts to call Trump a con man.

I think both Bloomberg and Feinstein are patriots. They would prefer he succeed for the good of the country.

Neither of them have illusions about his unfitness for office or his character or the character of the government he has assembled.

I think Bloomberg had also spoken about his worry that the Democratic Party would not be able to unify.

to the Senate.

In these trouble times I can't think of anyone with the maturity and wisdom to represent the people of California more ably than our senior Senator.

Who gets blashed tomorrow on "Democratic" Underground?

Bad time for this sort of divisionism folks.

Comey meeting in March when Feinstein and Grassley came out looking green, grim, silent and as if they had been hit in the head with a baseball bat.

I've never forgotten the looks on their faces.

I've been inclined to think they were told that it wasn't just "interference" and hacking the DNC's computers but that the vote totals were manipulated. But "for the good of the country" than information must remain classified.

As Hilary said, this is who he is and the ONLY response is to say we will oppose him in any way we can.
Not accept we have to live with it.

And that's what they do: say nothing bad about people, and say polite things. She's not in my top half of favorite politicians, but she's got political instincts as good as they come and I can't deny that. Feinstein didn't even do that with Trump. She said she "hopes he has the ability to learn and change" and then reemphasized "hope."

That means she was saying he does NOT have the ability to learn, change, or be a good president. It was a sideways insult. She just chose the wrong audience.

Politically, what does she have to gain from talking shit publicly about Trump? Nothing.
She will eventually (hopefully) need to deal with her Republican colleagues; either our political climate will get sorted out soon or our republic will collapse.
Trump might want Democratic support on an infrastructure bill (not likely, but not impossible). Talking shit about Trump won't help with that.
It won't help change the opinion of the ignorant or on the fence voters, who want to see something more from politicians than anger (either against Trump or on his behalf).
There are plenty of people marching and expressing their anger, both on the streets and on the TV; her voice isn't needed for that.
The House has to vote for impeachment, so Feinstein talking shit about Trump isn't going to convince Ryan's bunch to do the right thing -- that'll have to come from House Dems and aisle-crossing Republicans.
It won't help the 2018 election, because everyone over the age of four has already made up their mind about President Dipshit.

So, again: she didn't say what we wanted to hear, but she said the politically smart thing.

And any idiot who wants him to "succeed" with his evil agenda is a fucking asshole.

Last edited Fri Sep 1, 2017, 05:10 AM - Edit history (1)

if she had not been sitting there when Moscone and Milk were assassinated. What irony? Her response to the reaction to her idiotic statement is even more weak and timid and stupid that her original statement.... P.S. Not mad at you ehrnst, mad at her and anybody who tries to softsoap me about that demonic entity.

Investigations her constituents believe may/may not lead to his impeachment

Stating that he's probably not going anywhere for 4 years is completely inappropriate

Strident than this, however that's probably too much to ask.

If not decades.

...ways to mop up.

He's systematically destroying our DOJ, our Dept. of Education, destroying the lives of DACA people, withdrew from Climate accords---he demonstrates every day that he's incapable of learning. It's TOO LATE to become a "good President"---he's already hurt us too much. How can a Pussy-grabbing liar ever be spoken of this way by a Democrat?

Her comments are stunningly tone-deaf. Please let this not be the stance of the Democratic leadership.

such opportunistic ambivalence from her DLC days.

...can do better.