The bill passed after some sheninagans by the White House when sixteen Democrats chickened out and voted with the Republicans. Most of them came from supposed Red States who thought that President 25% Approval Rating could still whip people up into a War on Terror frenzy and got nervous. Well, all of the Senators who voted for it were from Red or Reddish States except for one-- San Francisco's own Diane Feinstein.

What? What? What?

In a statement, DiFi said ..."the United States is vulnerable" …yadda yadda yadda… 9/11… yadda yadda yadda…"Meesa gonna Die." Well, not exactly, but she did point out that apparently intelligence chatter is up these days, which could be a reference to Homeland Security Chief Michael Chertoff’s recent bout of indigestion or Trent Lott's admonition for all Washingtonians to leave DC quickly as possible as they were all about to get blown up. Or, you could look at it simply that Feinstein heard the reasonable arguments made by the Administration about how the legislation was necessary, how the terrorists were making more noise, and how well they’ll conduct oversight on themselves and trusted them.

What seems to be going on is a case of "I Dare You." The Democrats are making noises of fighting the new policy and the White House is saying we dare you, and the Democrats are saying, in response, well, we double dare you, and the White House has responded back with the "we double dog dare you." All this mainly over the White House's pretty blatant case of "congress...shmongress" in terms of deliberating about the recent plans. All this is leading to the inevitable will they or won't they over pulling some of the funding on the war.

Meanwhile, Senators of both parties are working towards some sort of fluffy, non-binding resolutions that will kinda sorta say that they're against the surgescalation.

Either way, we think this guy pretty much says it all.

And so the question is raised, why DiFi, why? In her speech to her fellow Senators, DiFi put up that famous picture of marines raising the flag at Iwo Jima and talked about all the warm fuzzies she got when she first saw the picture. Calling it more than a symbol, she said that "freedom of speech enshrined in the First Amendment is the cornerstone of our great nation...but any thought expressed in the burning of the flag can be expressed equally well in another manner." Like wearing it on TRL Live? And couldn't we then start arguing that other components of freedom of speech that some people dislike, like protesting or downloading internet porn, could also be done in "another manner" and if so, could somebody let us know what it would be for internet porn?

The problem with Diane doing all this is that it gave this political stunt the "bipartisan" tag even though most Democrats cowered in a corner the moment the thing started being debated. It also merely enables the Republicans to do more stuff like this because there will always be someone like DiFi to say, "well, gee, that's not a bad idea."

Thanks, Diane.

In the first round, Pelosi is up against a tough challenger, #1 seeded Cynthia McKinney. McKinney is the Tupac quoting, police beating congresswoman from Georgia who is, for all intents and purposes, bat sh-- crazy. Tough draw, there Nancy.

Also, via Wonkette is a description of DiFi's "five-bedroom Italianate mansion" styled Pac Heights abode which she and her husband bought for a cheap, cheap, price of 16.5 million. We wonder if this is the reason why she's suddenly claiming poverty when it comes to flying. During a recent vote the Senate held banning Senators from using private, corporate jets to fly to-and-fro, or at least to reimburse the corporation for which it was "borrowed," DiFI was one of many who voted against it. Said our Senator about why she voted against it and why she refuses to fly commercial: (unfortunately, Times Select): "It's too expensive.''

Here's a piece of advice for Ms. Feinstein: Priceline.com

Yesterday, DiFi, who was actually on the Senate Judicial Committee but whose usual dignified and respectful tone got her unnoticed between Biden's buffoonery and the Kennedy/Specter cat fights, said that she'll oppose the nomination but that she doesn't think it filibuster worthy. In other words, she won't support Alito's nomination but won't go to the mat in fighting it. Quick SFist political analysis: this is what we call having it both ways with some icing and a cherry on top plus a root beer float on the side. This has already gotten the Kossacks over on Daily Kos into full fulmination mode as others have already started calling out the Dems for the wishy-washidness of their wishy washy-ness

No word yet from Babs, but considering she voted against the two-scoops of vanilla John Roberts, you could probably bet your bottom dollar that she'll also vote "nay" on Alito.