Who knows if this has anything to do with Sen.
Dianne Feinstein's
chilly reaction to the choice of
Leon Panetta for CIA Director, but back during the Clinton administration the two were on opposite sides of a base closure dispute.
In 1995, Feinstein and other California politicians strenuously objected to plans to close numerous bases in California, including the Long Beach Naval Shipyard. They lobbied their fellow Californian, Clinton chief of staff Leon Panetta, to encourage the president to reject the closure list and force the base closure commission to start over.
Clinton ended up approving the list, but (in somewhat typical fashion) he also denounced the commission and said he was particularly outraged by the economic effect the closures would have on California. Panetta was put in the position of assuring California lawmakers, including Feinstein, that -- contrary to all available evidence -- the cuts would not be as bad as they appeared. Feinstein was not pleased.
Two years later, both Panetta and Feinstein were interested in running for California governor. Panetta didn't want to run against Feinstein, who then as now was the Democrats' strongest statewide candidate. So he waited for Feinstein to make up her mind.
And waited.
And waited.
By the time Feinstein decided to stay out of the race, in January 1998, the primary was only four months away. Panetta reasoned that he would not have enough time to raise the money needed for a statewide campaign. So he dropped out as well.
Interestingly, the person who filled the centrist void once Feinstein withdrew was... South Bay Rep.
Jane Harman. Feinstein's supporters encouraged Harman to get into the race against Lt. Gov.
Gray Davis, who was viewed as a weak general election candidate. Harman was able to self-finance, but due to her late entry she never caught fire and ended up in third, behind Davis and airline mogul
Al Checchi.
Wouldn't it be odd if Feinstein again tried to block Panetta, again in favor of Harman?
