By Joeann Edmonds - 11/09/07 08:25 PM EST
In regards to activists and ordinary citizens not protesting Sen. Dianne Feinstein’s (D-Calif.) announcement that she will endorse Mukasey, that is just not true. Why don’t you call any of her offices and ask them how many phone calls she has received since Friday regarding Mukasey and how many were totally against her position?
I have tried for four days to call her San Francisco office and so have many others. I finally got through to L.A. The phones are busy 24/7, unless of course they took them off the hook. Feinstein does not let her constituents get through to her no matter how outraged we are. She responds to subjects that we don’t write her about. She does not listen or talk to her voters. The last four days have been a phone-fest of rejection to her Lieberman-like behavior. She is really upsetting California. Ask her how many calls and e-mails she received against her turncoat ideas.
Mill Valley, Calif.
Things sure do change on road toWhite House
From Nathan Dodell
I started reading an issue of The Hill and came across the headline “Clinton fundraising strategy proving right on the money.” The story began, “Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.) scored two major wins with one announcement Tuesday,” and went on to tell how Clinton’s “third-quarter numbers were dwarfing those of her rivals.”
The story quoted two political analysts, one of whom spoke of Clinton’s “dominant position,” saying “the chances of someone catching here are getting longer”; and another who the reporter said believed “the rest of the Democratic field must now fear that [the] narrative — of Clinton as the inevitable nominee — is hardening.”
I was surprised to read these analyses, and then I noticed the date of the issue: Oct. 3! But funny things happened on the way to the White House. The major setback to the junior senator’s fortunes came in the debate on Tuesday, Oct. 30. Most of the media said that she stumbled. She was seen as evasive and inconsistent.
Furthermore, other problems have arisen regarding Sen. Clinton’s candidacy. Her vaunted fundraising has raised questions as to the receipt of lobbyists’ money, with John Edwards going so far as to equate those contributions to a “bribe.” Mrs. Clinton has returned more than $800,000 in questionable contributions.
Sen. Clinton has been accused of hypocrisy for calling for transparency while obstructing the requests of Sally Bedell Smith and others for papers in the Bill Clinton library relating to her time as first lady. Attention has been paid to Mrs. Clinton’s role as one of the leaders in requesting earmarks, which contradicts her effort to appear as a candidate of the people.
One frequently hears the charge that Sen. Clinton lacks authenticity, a criticism which may well have legs. Also, it was surprising that so experienced a politician made a Don Imus-like gaffe in bad-mouthing Mississippi. She apologized, but so did Imus, and the apology did not do much for him. (The unfortunate reference to Mississippi, by the way, has been substantially underplayed by the media.)
One month has served to outdate the confident pronunciamentos of the analysts quoted on Oct. 3. What will the stories be a month from now, and thereafter?