Brush With History Energizes Feinstein’s Future

For a few fleeting days last year, Mayor Dianne Feinstein imagined herself as the next vice president of the United States.

Fate and Democratic presidential candidate Walter F. Mondale, of course, had different plans.

But the excitement lingers from having come so close to that historic place on the national ticket. And these days, at age 51 a proper and telegenic Dianne Feinstein, a former actress, former rodeo queen, and former loser, is the most talked-about woman in California politics.

Seen in New Roles

And in Democratic circles what they talk about is whether she is the kind of candidate for the U.S. Senate or--with increasing frequency now--the kind of candidate for governor who could interest, inspire and win voters.

At least that is what her admirers talk about.

In this year of early maneuvering for the forthcoming statewide elections, Feinstein’s detractors figure her for everything from a political spoiler to a candidate who would be doomed in moderate-to-conservative regions by the permissive, bawdy aura of her city, San Francisco.

“I’m very philosophical about it. If it is meant to be, it will be,” shrugged Feinstein about higher office. “And probably that relates to the way I came into this job.”

Hers is the kind of fatalism that comes from running twice for mayor, in 1971 and 1975, and losing, and then, having all but decided to retire from politics, being thrust into the office.

She became mayor after the November, 1978, assassination of Mayor George Moscone and county Supervisor Harvey Milk. At the time, she was president of the county Board of Supervisors, which also functions as the City Council.

Under the Charter of San Francisco, Feinstein, who beat back a 1983 recall and was reelected seven months later--in both cases by awesome 80% majorities--cannot seek another consecutive term when this one ends in 1987.

And while she may have come close to retirement a few years back, many of those who know her say she was energized by being in the finals for the vice presidential selection, and now feels her career is just starting, not finishing.

With Feinstein insistently detached, speculation by outsiders and lobbying by her insiders now focuses on the question of where to channel the mayor’s ambitions. Which office should she seek in 1986? Or, should she should wait for 1988?

Looking to Senate

Beginning last fall, Feinstein seemed to be leaning toward challenging U.S. Sen. Alan Cranston, a fellow Democrat who is seeking a fourth term. A miserable showing in his 1983-84 run for the presidency and simple longevity, it was reasoned, had softened Cranston.

However, the prospect of an intraparty primary struggle in California just as Democrats nationwide plotted to recapture control of the U.S. Senate has caused no end of turmoil in party circles and pushed Cranston to new heights of effort to scare away challengers.

Republicans, meanwhile, could barely constrain themselves at the thought of a Democratic imbroglio.

Feinstein now blames Cranston himself for fanning speculation about her potential challenge. It began when the senator asked Democratic leaders throughout the state for early reelection endorsements. She was the most notable figure to beg off.

But, she continued: “I never proposed myself as a candidate. All I said . . . is, ‘Alan, I probably will end up supporting you but right now, at the moment, I want to keep my options open.’ He said: ‘Well I’m going to make my announcement anyway, and you do what you have to.’ So, he made the (Feinstein) candidacy. I have not.”

More recently, it appears that the weight of opinion of those who support Feinstein has shifted, if only a little, toward encouraging her not to oppose Cranston but to run for governor in 1986 or wait until 1988 and test Republican U.S. Sen. Pete Wilson.

“If she runs against Cranston she’ll be condemned as a party spoiler, possibly weakening him so he’s vulnerable in the general election. And there are party types who will never forget. I mean never forget,” explained fellow San Francisco Democrat Willie Brown, Speaker of the California Assembly. “She should run for governor, and I have told her that.”

Brown, an extravagant politician if ever there was one, briefly flirted with the idea of quitting the Assembly and running to succeed Feinstein as mayor. But he said in an interview that he is now interested in staying where he is.

As it happens, Feinstein’s view of herself fits more comfortably with the job of governor than senator.

“I very much prefer the executive side of government. I like just being able to do and to create and to get things done better than I do the debating that is really characteristic of the legislative side of government,” she explained.

Powerful Uncertainties

In the words of her confidant, Deputy Mayor Hadley Roff: “I think if she had her druthers, she’d run for governor. But there are a lot of uncertainties here.”

Two of these uncertainties are named Tom Bradley and George Deukmejian.

Deukmejian, the incumbent Republican governor, is viewed by many Feinstein backers as skillfully in tune with the mood of voters.

“I believe it would be extremely difficult for Dianne to beat Deukmejian,” said Clinton Reilly, a high-tech, high-powered campaign consultant who has been advising her to focus on the 1986 U.S. Senate race. “It is possible for her to win by losing--by increasing her visibility and raising the right issues. But that is a decision she’ll have to make.”

Bradley, mayor of Los Angeles, lost his first run for governor to Deukmejian in 1982. Although focused on his own mayoral reelection this spring, Bradley is almost universally thought to covet another chance for the Statehouse.

Won’t Challenge Bradley

And Feinstein stated flatly: “I would not run against Tom Bradley.”

Why?

“First, I don’t want to. I have a great respect for another mayor. I know what mayors go through. I’m very fond of Tom. When I was in trouble here, he came up here and campaigned for me, I mean walked (precincts). And I don’t forget those things.”

Insofar as is known, Feinstein has not contributed or encouraged recent efforts by a handful of new-breed Democrats to edge Bradley out of the 1986 race for governor.

Former state Democratic Party Chairman Peter D. Kelly recently suggested that she finish out her term and focus on a 1988 race against Wilson. “At some point, she’s going to be a terrific candidate,” he said.

For her part, Feinstein said she is doing little except listening to all this advice.

Staying at Home

She has traveled little and made few of the out-of-town speeches that are the customary preamble to a bid for statewide office. Instead, she has happily indulged her appetite for the close-in work of City Hall, which in San Francisco can run to the colorful.

Currently, for instance, the city fathers are deep into a debate over a home port for the battleship Missouri. Should it be welcomed to San Francisco because it will mean jobs in a depressed neighborhood? Or should it be waved off in a symbolic statement for peace? Feinstein wants the ship.

It is also the city where one political figure, businessman and former municipal transportation director Dick Sklar, donated two of the world’s largest rodents known as capybaras to the city zoo with the names, Quentin and Kopp, to poke fun at a salty county supervisor named, of course, Quentin Kopp.

Sometimes zany, occasionally outrageous, and nothing if not diverse, San Francisco produced in Feinstein, of all things, a passionately centrist politician.

“The Democratic Party has to occupy the middle of the political spectrum to win an election,” she said. “. . . To run things from one end or the other is very divisive.”

Holding Middle Ground

She has been faulted for catering to downtown, high-rise developers at the expense of neighborhood housing, but otherwise has given enough and withheld enough from enough different political forces in the city, from its active gay population to its powerful labor leaders, to keep her title as exasperatingly moderate.

But on the other hand, policies of the center in San Francisco can take on a different tinge when viewed from afar.

“My God!” thundered Supervisor Kopp, “This woman had a lesbian wedding in her backyard. What will she say about that?”

Replied Feinstein, who is married to a millionaire capitalist after being widowed and previously divorced: “There is no such thing as a lesbian wedding. What I had was a small gathering for two people who were going to live together. And there was no wedding. There were no vows recited. They said some things to each other and that was the extent of it. And that was, oh, 10 years ago.”

Variety of Moods

Feinstein’s speeches can run as thick and sweet as syrup, giving her a schoolmarmish cast, and her relations with the news media sometimes bring out a brittle, defensive streak. On a recent trip to China, for instance, she confessed with a straight face that she liked the way reporters in that Communist country were polite, asked their questions, took down her answers verbatim and then left.

But virtually everyone, whether they like Feinstein or not, recognizes her energy in public office. So consumed is she that when it comes to extraneous activities, like cooking, as daughter Katherine recounted, the mayor follows this quick recipe: “Open all cans.”

Perhaps most important of all in today’s politics, Feinstein’s husky voice, good looks and intensity project strongly on television.

As she said: “I believe people respond more to personality than party. . . . It’s often said about (President Ronald) Reagan that he’s the best communicator we’ve ever had. There is nothing wrong with trying to learn from that so that people follow you.”