Sen. Dianne Feinstein's chilly response Tuesday to outreach from President-elect Barack Obama - after stomping on his choice of fellow Californian Leon Panetta as head of the CIA - dealt the incoming administration what is being described as the first "brush-back pitch" from powerful Democrats in Washington.

Feinstein - the new chairwoman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, who will oversee Panetta's confirmation hearings - raised eyebrows when she expressed surprisingly sharp disapproval of Panetta as nominee for CIA chief on Monday. She said that "the agency is best served by having an intelligence professional in charge." Panetta has no intelligence agency experience.

Feinstein, the outgoing chair of the Senate Rules Committee, followed that shocker Tuesday by breaking with Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid and Obama when she said Roland Burris should be seated as the newest U.S. senator after he was appointed to Obama's seat by Illinois Gov. Rod Blagojevich, who is under investigation for trying to sell the seat vacated by the president-elect.

Vice President-elect Joe Biden said Tuesday it was a mistake not to give Feinstein a courtesy heads-up about the coming nominations of Panetta and retired Adm. Dennis Blair as national intelligence director. But even after Biden and Obama contacted her personally Tuesday, the California senator didn't soften her opposition to Panetta, saying only that now she is "looking forward" to talking to the former Clinton White House chief of staff "about the critical issues facing the intelligence community."

Those who know Feinstein well and have worked intimately with her insist that her public critique of Panetta was not personal in nature. Though the two have competed on the political stage - a movement in 1998 to get Panetta to run for governor was derailed largely by rumors that Feinstein would throw her hat in the ring - insiders say that this week's dustup was more a message to the incoming Obama administration about Beltway politics.

"Leon certainly has management and organizational experience up the wazoo, and clearly he knows how to run an organization," said Barbara O'Connor, professor of political communication at Cal State Sacramento. But Feinstein is "chair of the committee ... the rules are the rules. You have to get along with the senior elected officials of your own party, and she's one. And they require face time. Had they briefed her adequately ... she wouldn't have been surprised," she said.

One high-level Democrat with strong ties to Feinstein, who spoke on condition of anonymity, characterized the senator's statements on Panetta this week as "a show of strength, a brush-back pitch, from a powerful chair who can be helpful or hurtful" to Obama.

"She feels strongly about protocol," Feinstein's friend said. "As chair of the Intelligence Committee, she expected a courtesy call, especially if it was going to be outside the norm."

"If she did not respond with a show of strength, she'd be seen as weak," the insider said. "This is not the time for weak leaders. And she is not the kind of wallflower that would simply turn the other cheek with this kind of offense."

With just 14 days until the president-elect's inauguration, the unexpected umbrage from a powerful California senator over the naming of a well-known and highly respected California nominee underscores what one Democratic insider describes as a political "reality check for Obama.

"The lesson is that, despite the Democratic euphoria over winning the White House back and expanding our margins in the House and the Senate, you still have very powerful committee chairs ... who will be very protective of their turf," said Democratic strategist Garry South.

Democrats who dismiss such matters might recall that "Jimmy Carter came into office and ran afoul almost immediately of the Democratic Congress - and never recovered because of that," he said. "It is a warning sign to the Obama administration that despite his significant electoral victory and popular victory, he still has to contend with powers that be in the Senate."

[...]

...O'Connor said, it should be a lesson learned.

"You don't want a chair of your own party, who's chairing a major subcommittee, reacting this way to your appointment," she said.

With the withdrawal of New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson as Obama's nominee for commerce secretary - in the face of a pay-to-play inquiry - and the current brouhaha over Panetta, she said, "I would be more careful. You don't want to squander all the good will from the election."

Just in case anyone's forgotten or are too young to remember --the former Democratic senator from Oklahoma and current Unity 08 poobah, David Boren, is an egomaniac who stabbed Bill Clinton in the back repeatedly when he was trying to pass his economic plan in 1993. (As did Bob Kerrey and Sam Nunn, among others.) After months of kissing Boren's ass and treating him like the perfumed prince he believes he is, Boren went on "Face The Nation" and announced that he just couldn't support his president.

He had already insisted on getting rid of the proposed BTU tax and wanted a "compromise" that would have dropped all the new taxes on the wealthy and make up the money by capping Medicare and Medicaid and getting rid of Clinton's planned EITC for the poor. He, like Bob Kerrey and many others, were obsessed with "fixing" social security and other "entitlements" in order to cure the deficit.

But there was one thing he believed in more than anything else:

From The Agenda:

Gore asked, what did Boren want changed in the plan in order to secure his vote?

Like a little list? Boren asked.

Yeah, Gore said.

Boren said he didn't have little list. Raising the gas tax a nickel or cutting it a nickel or anything like that wouldn't do it, he said. He had given his list to Moynihan like everybody else in the Finance Committee. It was over and done with, and Boren likened himself to a free agent in baseball. "I have the luxury of standing back here and looking at this," Boren said. His test would be simple: Would it work? If not, it didn't serve the national interest.

Gore said he was optimistic for the first time.

Boren shot back. "There's nothing you can do for me or to me that will influence my decision on this matter." he added. "I'm going to make it on the basis of what I think is right or wrong."

Nobody responded for a moment. Clinton then stepped in. Why didn't Boren think it was in the national interest? he asked.

It wasn't bipartisan, Boren answered. To be successful in this country it had been demonstrated over and over, an effort had to be bipartisan, Clinton had even said so himself, Boren pointed out. Even most optimists, Boren said, thought they were still not even halfway there.

No Republican voted for the plan. Clinton knew that he would never get any Republicans to vote for a plan to raise taxes on the wealthy after the handful who had done so in 1990 were burned at the stake by the conservative movement. But sure, they would have voted for a "compromise" that raised no taxes, dropped all investment in infrastructure, any help for the poor and capped spending on the sick to cure the deficit. That's bipartisanship, village-style.

Bob Kerrey eventually agreed to vote for the plan making it a 50-50 tie --- which Al Gore broke, passing the plan. (It passed by one vote in the House, as well.)

Right after the vote Kerrey went on the Senate floor said:

"My heart aches with the conclusion that I will vote yes for a bill which challenges Americans too little.

"President Clinton, if you're watching now, as I suspect you are, I tell you this: I could not and should not cast a vote that brings down the presidency...

"Get back on the high road, Mr President,"Kerrey proclaimed. Taxing the wealthy was simply "political revenge," he said. "Our fiscal problems exist because of rapid, un controlled growth in the programs that primarily benefit the middle class." Clinton needed to return to the theme of shared sacrifice, he said, and should have said no to the deals and compromises.

And then he went back on his word to Clinton that he wouldn't demand a bipartisan commission to study how to cut all those middle class "entitlements."

David Broder loves David Boren and Bob Kerrey and thinks the country is best served by rabid conservative ideologues and preening Democratic narcissists who lay down for Republicans and fight their own president every step of the way if he wants to enact any kind of progressive legislation. That's called "getting things done."

He needs to get a grip on these Democrats immediately. At this point, I'm actually more worried about them than I am of the Republicans. These people can make or break the majority.