Plz, Bidenites! Two good friends say they are not considering Biden because of the Anita Hill

hearings. I'd like to know from you guys what you say when/if you get those questions. These are two good Dems, and they certainly haven't been freeped in any way. But I just don't know what to tell them...

He put in a poor performance as Chair of the Judiciary Committee, including letting the Reps put up all kinds of candidates to testify and then taking the Dem rebuttal testimony in writing in lieu of actually appearing.

and if they can't accept that, then let them go. The law is the law. I wouldn't wast time trying to debate it personally. You'll never change their minds. We have seen this issue on here, and even when the facts have been posted, people still ignore it, and go with THEIR opinon.

Let it go.

Anita Hill's - thus streamlining Thomas's way onto the SC. He really bungled the hearings.
(BTW, you can really bungle things and do a lame-ass job without breaking the law. So saying "he followed the law" is totally pointless.)

hearing. It was not a criminal prosecution. It was a confirmation hearing, and Joe Biden did not vote for Thomas.

the facts are that Biden kept witnesses off the stand that would have undermined Anita Hill's honesty.

There was a co-worker that wanted to testify how Ms Hill was bragging about dating Thomas.

But since Anita Hill has been canonized - inevitable since she's the anti-Thomas symbol - little factoids like that don't seem to matter.

He mishandled the process from start to finish. Gave the RETHUGS everything they wanted - time - PRIME time, and just didn't put up a fight for Anita Hill. I'll never forgive him for that. Clarence Thomas should have and could have been kept off the Court.

Biden let it happen.

operating on DU were true or not...but lately I've seen some relatively new posters on board that ONLY speak of their candidate and trash the others...yet don't bother commenting on anything else.
Things that make you go hmmmm...

if you're a Biden supporter, then why not ask this in the JBS supporters group, instead of opening it up for a all out slamfest, which is sure to happen now.

I don't remember being so upset with Biden during the Hill hearings. I was more incensed by what was happening with those awful RWers saying terrible lies about Hill. Now my memory is hazy, but I will certainly research this more. These two friends are very reliable and good Dems as I've said and I'd like to have a good political talk with them about this.

Again, I'm sorry this has been irritating; I truly didn't mean it that way.

we can answer anything, without bringning all of the flakes out.

because I think he's got a lot to offer. I am torn between him and Edwards (not that it matters in tiny Connecticut!). I love Edwards on domestic policy and then I get very scared about what is going on in the world and think I must be for Biden. He is by far the best on foreign policy of all the candidates.

Please do pm me on this. And I promise to get over the the Biden support group page (oops, I'll have to become a donor to post there but that's ok).

RWers saying terrible lies about Hill." Biden controlled the event. He decided on witnesses (or who didn't testify). He produced and directed the show. There is really nothing you can say in his defense. I took off from work and watched the entire drama. Biden screwed up on the management of the hearings. At the time I think he actually believed that Anita was a harlot.

Maybe he has grown up a little and no longer believes everything his towel-snapping senate colleagues spew - that could be his defense.

newsflash -- he's not Mr. Perfect.

I wasn't paying attention to politics yet during the hearings (young and self-involved), so I like seeing both viewpoints presented here.

pretending to care about Anita Hill. I watched the hearings when I could, and listened on the radio to and from school. I was so upset at the results. This woman was strong enough to come forward and they treated her like crap. Biden was one of the good ol boys who betrayed her.

betrayed her, a woman. Riiigghhhht.

I remember it very well. And that has been my reluctance to support Biden. He talks big, and did then, and ends up doing the least resistive thing.

He did good things too, I am not denying that. But, I cannot deny that he did this too.

I have major issues with most of the candidates.
Should I start a thread on those too?

I responded to a poster who asked about Anita Hill, and I responded with my experience.

Many people formed an opinion of Biden based on those hearings.

I have actually been through a sexual harrasment suit. If you haven't been through one, then you really don't have any room to talk about it, even if you "watched it on TV". That hearing was mild compared to what I went through, for FOUR years.

I have Biden's responses as to why he made the decisions he did. I'm not even going to debate this with you people. There's nothing more to debtate. It was 20+ years ago, and it was the first time ANY sexual harrassment was made public, so if it stuck in your craw, oh well.

(and, I have this in RTF format, so I am not able to provide a link, but Biden was interviewed a few months before the first anniversary of the October 1991 hearings )

Here is what he later said about it;


WAS ANITA HILL'S LIE DETECTOR TEST RELEVANT?
BIDEN: Even though the rules of evidence do not pertain (in congressional hearings), they do give us great insight into the best way to shed light on the truth....Case in point: Lie detector tests. I fought for over 20 years (against) their admission (in court) because every civil libertarian, including every women's group, has argued against them because they're used against people wrongly. There is no conclusive evidence they are accurate.


WAS CLARENCE THOMAS' ALLEGED PORNOGRAPHIC MOVIE-VIEWING HABIT RELEVANT?
BIDEN: Women will come in and say, `Why didn't you let in (evidence of Thomas' alleged pornographic movie viewing habits)?' How about if there was evidence that SHE liked pornography? Would it have shed any light on whether or not she was telling the truth? (Such information about Thomas) would have been independent verification that Thomas watched pornography, not that he talked to her about it, any more than if he had said, `This woman is promiscuous,' and then I established that this woman had slept with four different men in one week. Would that have proven whether she was telling the truth or not? Just because she slept with four men, does that mean she can't be harassed? It would have been prejudicial if it were in a court room, and it would never have been allowed.


WOULD ANGELA WRIGHT'S TESTIMONY HAVE CHANGED THE COURSE OF HISTORY?
Angela Wright is another woman who had worked for Thomas at the EEOC who had been subpoenaed by the Senate Judiciary Committee. She told committee staff who interviewed her that Thomas had pressured for her dates and made inappropriate comments about her appearance, once asking at an EEOC seminar, "What size are your breasts?" Although she was standing by in Washington, she was never called to testify at the hearings.

While Biden says he "insisted" that she testify, Wright and her attorney say that was never communicated to them. Instead, they recall that Biden's counsel Cynthia Hogan suggested that Wright ask the committee to withdraw her subpoena. She refused, saying if the committee wanted to withdraw it, that was their perogative, but she was willing to testify if the committee called her.
In a last-minute, late-night maneuver, Wright and her attorney say Biden offered the concept of a letter releasing her from the subpoena but putting her testimony and that of a corroborator in the official record. Wright acceded to the offer, explaining that her consistent position had been that she was not asking to testify, but she was willing to testify if the senators called her.
BIDEN: "I believe (her testimony) could have (changed the course of history). Now others believed that she would hurt Anita Hill. I was told (Angela Wright) wanted the subpoena lifted and that people who were strong Anita Hill people wanted the subpoena lifted. They believed that Anita Hill's testimony was so strong standing on its own that no matter how good anyone else was, it would be diluted. It would take away from it.

WHY WASN'T A PANEL OF SEXUAL HARASSMENT EXPERTS CALLED?
BIDEN: I wanted a panel on sexual harassment to come and testify, so we could put in context what we were talking about. And it was decided by the Hill people that they didn't want that panel to come on. Again, there was a feeling --communicated to me secondhand -- that Anita Hill had won this thing. She had made her case. And I kept saying, `wrong, this ain't over.' I was very disappointed ....Whether or not it would have helped Anita Hill, it would have enlightened; it would have shed more light on the veracity of the comments that had been made by all parties in my view.


WHY DIDN'T SEN. BIDEN DEFEND ANITA HILL MORE AGGRESSIVELY?
BIDEN: Do I have any regrets (about the hearings)? That I didn't attack the attackers more. Some of the articles that have been written say, `Why didn't I do what the Republicans did?' If I had done what the Republicans did, I would have made a lie of everything I think I stand for. I ran for the United States Senate in part because I truly believed the one hallmark of my 20-year career is that civil liberties mean a great deal to me.
Mark me down as not joining the school that the end justifies the means. What's wrong with America is that we have gotten to the point where our perception of what is right and wrong is judged on the result. I am not going to join the parade that violates the most fundamental sacred principle that I think should judge and govern those who govern.

WHY DIDN'T ANITA HILL TESTIFY A SECOND TIME?
BIDEN: I also wanted Anita Hill to come back and gave (her) that opportunity. But again, I'm not criticizing. I could just as well have been wrong.


WHAT WAS THE SIGNIFICANCE OF THOMAS PLAYING THE "RACE CARD"?
BIDEN: Thomas was the one in my view engaging in racism, and I not only mean racism in terms of playing the race card, but racism in trying to reinforce the stereotypical notion about black women. That was the sin I don't forgive the guy for and those who were making his case.

IS THOMAS ON THE COURT ONLY BECAUSE HE IS BLACK?
BIDEN: "I think that the only reason Clarence Thomas is on the Court is because he is black. I don't believe he could have won had he been white. And the reason is, I think it was a cynical ploy by President Bush."

(a point, which, by they way, Anita Hill's attorney agreed with)

And for you to suggest that we cannot comment on what happened with Anita Hill at the hands of the sexist group of men--you are wrong.

People always try to ignore the facts. If the facts don't suit you, then so be it. but don't state your OPINION, as if it were fact.

Your opinon does not equal fact. My opinion does not equal fact. The facts, however are there for all to see and remember. And those facts, are the basis of my opinon.

sheesh.

by stating, under oath, that he didn't view or discuss pornography. It was direct, impeaching testimony and totally relevent.

derisive and demeaning opinion of Anita Hill. They talked down to her, they treated her as if she were a criminal. The way she was treated have everything to do with why we're stuck with Clarence 'Affirmative Action is a Bad Thing' Thomas on the Supreme Court.

then

WHATEVER:crazy:

and behavior just as off-putting for every single one including Dennis.

So if they're not able to look at his entire record and consider his electability and good qualities, they are essentially single issue voters and there's not much to be said to them.

We are not going to get everyone to agree with us and all the candidates have issues we will disagree with. It is not worth the time and energy to convince one-issue voters to change their minds.

One is male and one is female. I am fond of them both. We get along famously and share many of the same causes. We differed on one issue last election: our mayor in New Haven, which is completely irrelevant to the Biden thing.

I am not slamming Biden in this thread. I am looking for some information. I don't know if my friends and I will be able to vote for Joe in the Feb. primary here, but I thought I would talk to them about it. I am torn between Edwards and Biden at this point...

what exactly has John Edwards done for this country, or the people of it? Biden has been behind some of the most infleuntial legislation, that has changed lives for the better. Take the Violence against women act for example. The Biden crime bill as another. There are a lot more as well.

I want someone who actually does things, not just talks about doing them. John had many opportunities when he was in the Senate to get things done, and he did nothing.


You do what you want, but I'm voting my conscience, and for the right person, who is a man of action, not empty words.

voting for him. I have a family member who has worked with his political consulting team and he thinks Biden is wonderful and has LONG supported him for a shot at the presidency, way before anybody was thinking about it. So right here in my family there is strong support for his candidacy. But there are also Obama supporters and Clinton supporters (including my 9 year old granddaughter who is a strong feminist and boy, would she give you an argument!).

In all fairness, however, I must point out that to compare Edwards' one Senate term (and that with a Republican controlled Senate) with Biden's long tenure spanning years with the Democrats in control of the Senate is a bit, well, unfair. What I will say however, is that Biden's long tenure of service is a plus in my estimation -- he has stuck with it through thick and thin. VAWA is a good example.

At any rate, I wonder how this will play out after Thursday. Any bets (or surmises)?

Happy New Year! :hi:

about the Anita Hill controversy. I was also angry with Sen. Spector. I still don't like Spector. But Joe voted for that darn law that let credit card companies double their minimum payments and attach late fees, etc. I can't hold a grudge forever, in fact not at all, so I would rather have Biden than any of the Republicans. None of them is perfect.

and as much as it was hated, it brought to light a serious problem in the workplace, and brought about the kind of changes, and laws, that benefit ALL women now.

Unfortunantely, there always has to be a "sacrificial lamb" before things change in this country.

I'm more outraged that they let him be confirmed, and that he now hates his job.

And, again, Joe didn't vote for him.

Biden - no thanks.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Sorry he's stupid.

the hair plugs.and he flubs too much. just a slightly warmed up KERRY. WHO LOST(yeah yeah, ohio stolen)TO THE WORST PRESIDENT EVER WHO TRIED TO LOSE! got wood?!?

just say no.

I didn't realize that people were really that shallow.

I bet if you got your head cut open twice, you'd have them too, or a bad rug.

Bad hair plugs;



Biden, not so much

Anyone who has gone thru serious multiple surgeries can be forgiven that, as I know since I had 3 abdominal surgeries last spring. I can only cringe at the thought that he had 2 brain surgeries. Multiple surgeries are no fun, hair plugs or no hair plugs...

None of our candidates are such a troll that they would cost us votes based on thier looks so we ought not pick a candidate based on his or her physical appearance.

"I like you" when speaking to Gonzales at his Attorney General hearing.

zalinda

speak out AGAINST him.

so shoot her not me..........that just gets stuck in my head.

zalinda

to "let go."

I think you ask them if they've thought about letting go of the past and evaluating what's needed in leadership today.

Look, all I've heard negative about Joe Biden is based upon a handful button issues from people looking for a reason to detract from his appeal because he threatens the success of a candidate in whom they are personally invested.

When I hear people complain about a handful of (for them) button issues over the span of a man's 35 years in national governance - where many local, state and regional interests compete - and then I hear those same people advancing the cause of candidates with NO such record to evaluate or compare, it's simply no wonder to me that we get the 'surprise' incompetence of a chimpy as the natural result.

... in general.

He's not a dyed-in-the-wool liberal, I don't think, but he's reasonable and his "ratings" from women's groups seem to have risen. He does have a long career that'd provide ample ammunition against him, and this is one example.

But he does have a lot of qualities that would make him a good candidate and president. Experience on Foreign Relations etc., and an engaging demeanor on the stump. That "regular guy" thing (I think); quick sense of humor.

To tell you the truth, I don't remember his exact actions step-by-step during Anita Hill's testimony -- I mostly remember the Republicans being INCREDIBLE jerks about it. So if it comes to the general election, and this is a concern, a vote against the GOP is definitely the way to go!!

on how you don't think his "record with women isn't stellar". Did you read the thread at all?