I could handle that ticket, tho! Joe and Joe! Love the ring of that!

Also, he is only a year younger than Bernie Sanders and does not draw Bernie's crowds. We probably need a younger candidate.

Biden will turn 78 in 2020. Nearly 80. He would be 84 in 2024.

I'm 74 and in extremely good health. I am probably too old to deal with all the details, stress and physical exhaustion that a president has to deal with.

And the Bankruptcy bill is a big problem for him.

Maybe we can dig up JFK's body and run his corpse, too.

Why can Democrats come up with ONE SINGLE NEW CANDIDATE? Look at the two greatest Dem candidates in our lifetimes -- unknown Bill Clinton, and unknown Barack Obama. Why do we keep calling upon the crypt keeper to bail us out?

like a pair of winners

New blood and old wisdom........wow!

seen him in action, and have been impressed.

...named Franklin Delano Roosevelt? Who? Well...he did have a bit of a familiar name, I suppose...and despite the landslide of 1920, he was a pretty good choice.

he is a down home honest man and truly loves and respects values, the Constitution and law and order. AND he isn't above calling out bullshit@

though, he has tried to run for President multiple times and was rejected each time.

His time has come and gone

The “We need new blood, Hillary should disappear ... but, HEY! Let’s run Joe Biden” argument needs some work ...

you just know there's no logic to it either.

Biden carries all of the baggage that supposedly made Hillary such a “flawed” candidate - Iraq War vote, Crime Bill (which he voted for, it she didn’t), close ties to bankers and Wall Street - plus plenty of other problems - his spotty civil rights record, Anita Hill, plagerism history, gaffe proneness - yet folks are willing to give him a pass while still trashing her. It’is pretty disgusting, but very telling.

I can't even.

But they thought it just made Hillary unworthy.

And I "like" Joe, I'm just amazed at the cognitive dissonance on display.

which needs to be examined.

And, really, I am an old baby boomer but it is time to bring young blood.

Not Biden, not Brown, not Hillary, not Sanders.

If there was any effort to squelch the accusations, Biden resisted it. Hill wouldn't have made it into the history books if he hadn't.

I was there and bore witness to what happened. Biden was not anything even close to a hero on this. No matter how much people try to rewrite history now, too many of us remember exactly what happened.

I remember it well. Seemed like forever at the time.

Then he failed to call the women who were waiting to testify in support of Anita; and the video store owner who was also expecting to testify. But Biden did have the time to allow some guy to testify about how Anita had "erotomania."

He also required Anita to give the committee her written testimony before she testified -- and he supplied that testimony to Clarence Thomas. Clarence Thomas got to go first, and he spent his time ripping apart her testimony before she had even given it. BIDEN did that. He allowed Clarence Thomas to frame Anita's testimony.

Millions of women watched that week of hearings, and millions of women got a view of Biden's unfairness to Anita Hill they'll never forget.

https://www.bustle.com/articles/154791-how-long-were-clarence-thomas-confirmation-hearings-the-hbo-film-version-only-highlights-the-anita-hill

Thomas was nominated to the Supreme Court by George H.W. Bush on July 1, 1991, but his confirmation hearings in front of the US Senate Judiciary Committee didn't begin until September 10, 1991. His nomination was opposed by Jesse Jackson and the NAACP, and he was reportedly considered unqualified by the American Bar Association's Standing Committee for the Federal Judiciary. It wasn't until one month into the confirmation hearings, on Oct. 11, 1991, that Hill appeared in Washington D.C. to testify regarding her allegations of sexual harassment by Thomas.

Hill testified for about eight hours in front of an all-white male committee led by now-Vice President, then-Senator Joe Biden, all of which was televised nation-wide. In her testimony, the law professor alleged that Thomas would frequently make inappropriate comments and unwanted advances during their time at the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, where Thomas had been her supervisor. Thomas adamantly denied any such behavior in the few days of testimony that followed, and finally declared that he would not answer any more questions, calling the hearings "a high-tech lynching." He was confirmed to the Supreme Court a few days later on Oct. 15 by a narrow margin of 52 to 48.

I remember the hearings and I've posted the link to the transcripts. Surprise, the talking heads are wrong again.

brought them to DC, and got their depositions. After Hill was raked over the coals by Specter et al they didn't want to testify on TV. That's not exactly what they put out afterwards, but that's what's the record shows, and that's what Biden said on NPR a couple of weeks ago.

And Biden ran those hearings for 34 days, and called 11 different sessions. The next longest in modern memory was Powell's confirmation (5 days). Most take 3 or 4. Scalia's took two.

Biden did not harass Anita Hill or any other witness, or mistreat them in any way. He gave them all the time they needed to say their say. Their depositions are on record at the link below, as are Biden's explicit invitations to testify on TV. The conventional wisdom is ridiculous.

https://www.senate.gov/reference/Supreme_Court_Nomination_Hearings.htm

And if Biden runs, plenty of people who were there will set the record straight. And he won’t look good.

And he definitely doesn’t want folks in the civil rights community to revisit how he undercut desegregation back in the day.

Wright, and Rose Jourdain. As to why they didn't testify, it seems that Specter, Simpson, Hatch and the rest of the goons made it clear that they were planning to eviscerate them in the testimony leading up to their widely-anticipated appearance. This didn't happen because Biden announced that their subpoenas had been vitiated at their request and their written testimony would be inserted into the record instead. Here's the letter he sent to Angela Wright which he read into the record:

You can bet that, if he runs, the full story will be revisited and it won’t be pretty.

Biden was given a pass because of Obama, but those of us who were there have long memories and know exactly what happened. Biden’s behavior was despicable. Among other things, he dragged his feet for weeks before allowing Prof. Hill to testify, allowing her terstimony to be turned into an after-the-fact circus. If he had done his job and taken the issue seriously instead of bending over backwards to protect Thomas and maintain some bizarre form of “collegiality,” Thomas would never have made it out of Committee.

You can argue all you want, but I was there and know exactly what happened.

what Biden said after the hearings, and what Biden continues to say today.

I believe the women and Anita Hill.

Clarence Thomas was rated unqualified by the American Bar Association. Those 34 days included a month of testimony that had nothing to do with Anita Hill. She wasn't called to testify till a month into the hearing, and they confirmed him a few days later.

Nevertheless their written testimony is available for the world to see.

about erotomania . To allow that testimony to be heard at the public hearing and not the testimony of the women and the porn shop owner was a travesty.

https://www.politico.com/story/2015/09/biden-anita-hill-women-senate-clarence-thomas-213864

Biden has expressed regrets about the hearings but has never apologized for them, as many Hill supporters and others wanted. He's acknowledged that he was wary of the racial dynamics involved. He's said that calling those witnesses might have killed Thomas' nomination. He and aides admit that they didn't anticipate the degree to which Republicans would target Hill personally and that they were outplayed politically.

SNIP

Charles Ogletree, the Harvard Law School professor who represented Hill (and once had President Barack Obama as a student), said he's still mad about how Biden handled himself back then.

“I was shocked and dismayed that Joe Biden was asking questions that didn't seem appropriate and was not in her corner as a Democrat,” Ogletree said. “The point is that he's supposed to be neutral, but his questions to Anita Hill were as piercing as anyone's.”



https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/retropolis/wp/2017/11/24/rewatching-joe-bidens-disastrous-anita-hill-hearing-a-sexual-harassment-inquistion/?utm_term=.c1fe97d7c6b4


Re-watching Joe Biden’s disastrous Anita Hill hearing: A sexual harassment inquisition

Hill, facing 14 white men on the Senate panel, endured withering, skeptical questioning — including from Biden, who Hill and her defenders still blame for setting an accusing, skeptical tone and losing control not just of the seating arrangements.

“If you can, to the best of your ability,” Biden asked at one point, “I would like you to recount for us where each of the incidents that you have mentioned in your opening statement occurred, physically where they occurred.”

There was, Hill and others said later, some extreme tone deafness.

In asking Hill to describe the sexually charged moments with Thomas, Biden asked, “Can you tell us how you felt at the time? Were you uncomfortable, were you embarrassed, did it not concern you? How did you feel about it?”

SNIP

After the hearings, and as recently as this year, Hill and other women’s rights advocates expressed dismay that Biden did not call a panel of expert witnesses to inform the committee of 14 men about the pressure women felt to keep such incidents to themselves for so many years — their fear of reprisals, that men in power wouldn’t care, that women simply had no choice.

But if he didn't prepare his client for those 8 hours of testimony that's not Joe's fault. The pressure on Joe was to get her to testify. He did that. She testified for eight hours. On live TV. She faced questions from asshats like Alan Simpson and Arlen Specter. That wasn't Joe's fault either. It was their right as Senators. The other witnesses didn't want to go through that and Joe didn't force them to. Naturally they didn't let on that they'd changed their minds but that's what the record shows and Joe has been a gentleman about correcting it. Anita Hill had her say. Yes it was hard for her. But that's what Democrats, specifically it appears Democratic women, demanded. So how was any of this Joe's fault? It wasn't, and I'm very happy not to get near that swiftboat.

he was a prosecutor and she was a defendant.

Did you watch those hearings in real time? To me, as a young woman, it was sickening.

I believe the women's assertions that they were expecting to testify and that they weren't called. That's what the record shows -- that they and Biden disagree on the matter. And they are more believable because -- as I said -- I watched all those hearings. I saw his performance and was deeply disappointed.

It was also Biden's unbelievably unfair decision to give Thomas her prepared written statement, and then let him go first. He let Thomas dispute her, and slur her, and frame her testimony with his lies before she had given one word of testimony. That may have been Biden's worst choice; it's hard to decide because he made so many poor choices.

Women over 55 are among the voters with the highest participation in every election. And they're all old enough to have witnessed the travesty of those hearings, and they're not going to be enthusiastically backing Joe Biden. He might have the mature white male vote but he can forget about women. White or black or Asian, we've all faced sexual harassment and we're not going along with it anymore.

In case you haven't noticed.

#metoo

video. I vaguely remember the noise over Biden and never thought it added up to anything more than the usual RW hackery as Bush I was in office at the time. Biden put Anita Hill in front of the cameras for 8 hours. It wasn't his idea but he agreed to do it. Ultimately Thomas was confirmed, narrowly, but Hill had her say and it was a big moment. Your accusations are all over the place. He didn't let Hill testify! Oh wait he did. He didn't put the porn-store owner on the stand! You've got to be kidding. This was a senate confirmation hearing, not a talk show. He was mean in his questioning! No he wasn't, but others were. So blame them. Kicking Biden isn't any more warranted than kicking Franken. Less even.

and then he gave it to Thomas, and let him testify FIRST.

So Thomas, having the benefit of knowing exactly what her testimony would be, gave a long speech attacking her and turning her into a vindictive witch before Anita had a chance to say a word.

And that's on Biden.

And so was his decision not to call the porn shop owner, who would have offered testimony that would have proved Thomas was lying about his consumption of porn. This was a major issue since his harassment of Anita involved discussions of porn movies, and Thomas was claiming she was lying.

https://www.salon.com/2010/10/27/anita_hill_clarence_thomas/

At his confirmation hearings, Thomas had specifically denied ever engaging in workplace discussions about pornography. Joe Biden, who had chaired the Judiciary Committee hearings, told Abramson and Mayer:

"I could have brought in the pornography stuff. I could have decimated Thomas with that. I could have raised it with more legitimacy than what the Republicans were doing. But it would have been impossible at that point to further postpone the hearings for more investigation into his patterns of behavior ... and it would have been wrong."

SNIP

Specifically, Brock, who had branded Hill "a little bit nutty and a little bit slutty" in a 1993 book and who had challenged Abramson and Mayer to a debate when theirs was published, detailed his coordination with the Thomas camp:

"I next set out to blow away the Mayer and Abramson story that Thomas had been a frequent customer of an X-rated video store near Dupont Circle, called Graffiti, where in the early 1980s he was alleged to have rented X-rated videos of the type that Hill claimed he had discussed with her in graphic terms. In the hearings Thomas had pointedly refused to answer questions about his personal use of pornography, other than to categorically deny that he had ever talked about porn with Hill (or with anyone in the workplace). The Graffiti story was another theretofore unknown piece of evidence for Hill’s case ..."

"Now that Mark had opened up a channel directly to Thomas, I asked him to find out for me whether Thomas had owned the video equipment needed to view movies at home in the early 1980s ... Mark came back with a straightforward answer: Thomas not only had the video equipment in his apartment, but he also habitually rented pornographic movies from Graffiti during the years Anita Hill worked for him. Here was the proof that Senate investigators and reporters had been searching for during the hearings.

SNIP

Senate Democrats dropped the ball in 1991. A second witness, Wright, was ready to testify that Thomas had behaved toward her the same way that he'd behaved toward Hill. While Republicans would have made much of the fact that Thomas had fired her, her basic claim -- and the fact that another ex-Thomas employee told investigators that Wright had spoken with her about Thomas' conduct before she was dismissed -- would surely have bolstered Hill's credibility. Back in '91, long before he recanted, David Brock even wrote that Hill would have been more believable if a second woman had come forward. Wright has made it clear that she was ready to be that second woman. Democrats should have insisted on it.

Thomas had a right to know what he was charged with. Otherwise he'd have had a point about that high-tech lynching. Whether or not it was legal it would have been unjust to put him in the position of defending himself on live TV from charges he'd never read. Think about it. As for the porn purveyor, that probably would have been the hilarious end of Biden's political life, and while the watching world might have gotten a good chuckle out of Simpson and Specter tearing the guy to atoms, I doubt it would have have changed a single vote on the confirmation.

had actually done -- repeatedly discuss porn movies with Hill.

Imagine how Hill felt encountering those discussions of penises and pubic hair alone with her employer IN HER JOB, and then having to go up in front of a panel of 14 white men to explain it. But she was brave enough to do so.

And NO it wasn't normal procedure for them to give Thomas her entire written testimony to respond to BEFORE she could read it. It doesn't work that way in Court and it shouldn't have worked that way in the Senate.

You may doubt that the porn seller's testimony would have changed any votes, but Biden didn't. It would have proved that Thomas was a liar, and that would have been key. And so would the public testimony of other women who said that he had also harassed them. I believe the women that they were prepared to speak. But if Biden decided to not call them to spare their feelings, he was wrong. He let down Anita Hill and millions of women across the country who watched what happened to her when she so bravely came forward.

The others weren't attorneys and would not have fared as well. In other words there's not much the others could have added. I noticed that a lot of Dems (I count 11) voted yea and only one R, Packwood, voted nay. Would more testimony have persuaded some of those Dems to vote nay? I have to doubt that if, after a month of spectacularly well-publicized hearings, complete with the written depositions of Wright and Jourdain, a senator still voted to confirm, then a porn-shop owner would not have tipped the balance. Nor would Wright and Jourdain, but their distress under ruthless questioning would have seemed painfully unnecessary. Specter and particularly Simpson were verbally licking their chops in the preceding testimony.


https://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=102&session=1&vote=00220#position

I'm happy to accept the truth of both statements though I'm less sure than Biden about the effect they would have had. Anita Hill was the picture of grace under pressure and left little doubt that Thomas had done what she said he did. The others couldn't have matched that but could have diminished it. Wright for example had been fired and Specter would have had a field day shaming her with that. As Biden said in his NPR interview, once they withdrew their consent to appear voluntarily, he could no longer predict what they would say. So he was correct in not legally compelling them to testify in front of the committee.

where he got his porn was prepared to testify. He could have presented -- in the public hearing -- written evidence and his own testimony that would have contradicted Thomas.

It's funny to see DUers defending Biden's poor performance. Even he realized he had failed, and he has apologized -- though it took him decades.

In a recent interview, Pat Schroeder (Democratic Rep at the time) describes how rushed the process was, because Biden had "given his word" to Danforth.

Also, Thomas was provided with the other women's statements, and he attacked them in the public hearings -- but they were not allowed the chance to answer him in public. How can you justify that?

https://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/magazine/anita-hill-and-her-1991-congressional-defenders-to-joe-biden-you-were-part-of-the-problem/2017/11/21/2303ba8a-ce69-11e7-a1a3-0d1e45a6de3d_story.html?tid=ss_tw&utm_term=.143e46e33b39

On Friday, Oct. 11, Thomas testified first, followed by Hill. Thomas testified again that evening and the following day. Schroeder and Slaughter attended in person. The morning of Oct. 11, they were not sure whether Hill would testify and felt the process was being rushed. They spoke to Biden.

Schroeder: We went to see Biden, because we were so frustrated by it. And he literally kind of pointed his finger and said, you don’t understand how important one’s word was in the Senate, that he had given his word to (Sen. John Danforth (R-Mo.), Thomas’s chief sponsor) in the men’s gym that this would be a very quick hearing, and he had to get it out before Columbus Day.

SNIP

Hill: And at least they got to see me. So much of the strategy of the Republicans that unfortunately maybe Biden didn’t see through — or just didn’t feel empowered to control — was to control the amount of information that got out about me. I was told by Chairman Biden that I would speak first. And at the last minute that changed.

Casey: And why is that significant in terms of the message?

Hill: Because they wanted Clarence Thomas to do a preemptive strike against me.

Norton: You are hearing the rebuttal before you hear the accusation.

Hill: And no way is that ever appropriate in any kind of fair process. In fact, they were pushing to get me to release my statement even before I testified so that he could rebut it point by point even before the world saw me. That’s the same thing that happened to the other witnesses. Angela Wright came forward to say, “The experience happened to me.” Sukari Hardnett. Rose Jourdain. Three women who had worked at different times than I had at the EEOC came forward. Clarence Thomas was able to attack Angela Wright. Claimed that she was a disgruntled employee. She never even got to testify to defend herself.

Come on now. That kind of selective perception lost us a senate seat in Minnesota. The fact is that the statements made by Wright don't conflict with Biden's: yes she was there, because Biden had brought her there, and yes she was ready to testify, just not willingly. When the time came she asked not to be called and he didn't call her. He could have forced her to testify but he didn't. So her statements can be perfectly true at the same time as Biden's. Biden was a gentleman and waited 26 years to set the public perception straight but his version of events is what the record of the hearings shows.

what Biden did and confirm Anita Hill's account.

Here's the part where Wright says that they made her give her statement in advance, so that Clarence could attack her by name, at the public hearing -- and she wasn't allowed the chance to respond.

The twenty-sixth anniversary of the hearings? that's momentous ? Did Thomas just retire? or shuffle off this mortal coil? Or could it be that Thomas wasn't the target at all, but Biden, who was not the RW harasser appointed to the SC by a RW asshat, but the hapless Dem who ran the most thorough and far reaching confirmation hearings in memory? Why yes, it seems that Biden was and is the handy target of everyone's outrage, even though he's not the guy who harassed Anita Hill and not the guy making crappy decisions on the SC. Are you starting to see the pattern in the carpet? They're barking up the wrong tree on purpose.

p.s. by "they" I mean WaPo, not the women.

You think the women should have just kept their mouths shut?

Biden was supposed to be Anita's ally. Very few women who watched those hearings thought he was behaving like one -- even in his own questioning of her.

He was the CHAIRMAN of the committee, but he was always more concerned about fitting in with the good ole boys than he was with giving Anita a fair hearing.

enough is enough.

they know are wrong?

Wow.

Women owe Joe Biden nothing. They certainly don't owe him their silence about the way he treated Anita Hill.

That does not seem to me an unreasonable standard of behavior. Anita Hill was treated kindly and fairly by Biden and given an entire day of the hearing and history will remember her for a long time. That was thanks to Biden. He could have ended the hearings a week earlier and the world would not be the wiser.

and giving Thomas the chance to attack her and her witness (Wright) before they could make their own statements was patently unfair.

It isn't "kind" to be unfair.

One of substance and national historical perspective. I bet Joe could handle the criticism and start a more constructive dialogue of how much needed to be done differently.

Just Googled Anita Hill’s opening statement. Wow, she is formidable. I’m trying to find a way to watch the entire hearings again to recollect more.

Just about every politician I like has let me down on one thing or another.

These purity tests continue to kill us every freaking time.

Biden would help us heal as a nation while laying down the law with Russia and reestablishing the USA credibility and standing in the world.

he might be just what we need —stability, reliability, connections to Obama. With a young Kennedy to help with the millennials, etc.

Seeing his in-depth story tonight made me miss those no drama Obama years. Seeing his working man Scranton roots/Amtrak Joe background again. We need respect and stability and knowledge in office after Trump has trashed us globally.

Biden/Kennedy — sounds great!

he knows how to get things done and isn't afraid of turtle man.

He cowtows to nobody and tells it like it is.

Like him, too, but we need somebody younger. Not prejudiced against 78, just realistic — that’s my age also.

Nice balance there.

weight anymore, though.

But I just got a little nostalgic for the no drama Obama days when watching Biden’s Headliner show on MSNBC. Biden might be a way to bridge between those days while letting a younger VP get established. He’s not that well liked either, it seems. Sigh.

that the next nominee will have to weather a lot of flak from all directions. That’s why Biden could be a good transition. He can take the incoming so a younger VP can focus on the future. He also is a face of the Obama era — for the world peace and accord we will have to foment after Trump’s destruction.

is what caused him to fail Anita Hill, IMHO. He wanted to look like he was being fair to Clarence Thomas, but the result was he was unfair to Anita.

Who gives a shit? His views are good so should he be punished for being a Kennedy?

Prob need a woman and/or minority on ticket.

and they want younger blood. I think this pair would be great!

More like 74 going on 90.

Of course though, when isn't he 'just back' from Mar-a-Lago (and at $8 million in taxpayer dollars a pop, the cheap bastard).

Trump either is impeached or resigns in 2018 or 2019, depending on realeae if Mueller report.

He is a good man

His views on marijuana legalization are unacceptable in the Democratic Party of today.

fuck him and his desire to go after cannabis users

We need someone in their 50's

Has been calling Biden a pedo for months now. He told me that there are tons of pictures of Biden with blah blah blah is the rest of what I hear from him. Just to let you know that they are already working on him.

that is not in their 60s or 70s.

n/t

voted for the Iraq war Resolution, ...all this in addition to running the Clarence Thomas/Anita Hill hearing.

A biden nomination will highlight the double standard that helped bring us Donald trump.

I'm not saying he's done anything wrong (I'm not saying he hasn't either), but perception is reality .........

will be ancient history by the next election.

Biden is OK by me, but too old in general. Kennedy jumps on too many nutty bandwagons for me. I doesn't strike me as all that smart.

Biden to take him out. Mark my words.

Seriously?

has no problem with two white men. I just want a Democrat who can win, has a few left of center views, and will be more good than bad for the country.

That's very refreshing. The person you're responding to couldn't care less if we win or lose, as long as we lose with style.

I think Biden could kick ass and take names and then Kennedy would back him up and Biden can be Kennedy's on the job trainer and biden doesn't run a 2nd time but Kennedy does!!!

12 solid years of democratic at the top

the orange turd has alienated.

ewww. Old and a three time primary loser. Naw.

Not interested in 2 white men...

He has a long history of failing to win outside of Delaware. On the other hand Kennedy has the remarkable talent of being able to put a room to sleep within seconds. Yes this is "just the ticket".