Andrea Mitchell is actually letting some of her guests rip into Virginia Thomas,

She has a reporter from NYT and another woman from NPR both questioning the validity of the Thomas' relationships with politics and the teabaggers.

A rare instance where a morning MSNBC host gives the proper setup for Maddow and LO to run full speed with this story and dig deep into the true details of these inappropriate actions and relationships currently going on. Usually they're doing their own stories without any morning mention. This may actually have some legs. Both women being interviewed seemed genuinely surprised that such lines would be crossed in the ways they have.

And look at that! A Maddow commercial follows up the segment. Love it. Go Rachel, GO LO, tear these bastards some new ones!

a teenager would make a "phony phone call" to an old boyfriend....

To me it indicates some sort of real problem..somewhere. Why in the world would Ms. Thomas want to bring all that crap back into the light of public scrutiny again?

.... which pretty much validates everything in Hill's accusations.

Who would have read a book by someone restating decades-old accusations against Clarence Thomas? Not even me; I don't need any more proof that Anita Hill was telling the truth. (It's too bad the author didn't come forward during the confirmation hearings when it might have made a difference.) Until Ginny opened her big delusional mouth, that is. Off to the best-seller list we go!

given him either by Thomas (who 'dated' her), or Hill, who was her friend

now, which one would be the obvious source of the blackmail information (having to do with child custody in Savage's contemporaneous divorce)?

she was going to testify, but backed off because of what Brock said he "had" on her, according to Brock himself

I wonder if this latest revelation was enough to piss off Mrs. Thomas enough to intentionally embarrass her husband.

and shady ties to the tea party and the backlash that may come from that. In Thomas' mind, she was probably attempting to absolve herself of some wrongdoing by changing the focus onto Hill, but it seems that all she has accomplished is to mire herself deeper in a double vat of thick mud that would've otherwise remained hardened and long since forgotten.

isn't that the standard after making an ass out of yourself while intoxicated? I mean, this had to be a drunk dial, didn't it?

dialing under the influence....

and now that she brought this up she is letting a whole generation who is unaware of what happened at the hearings be informed of what a creep her husband is.

explain that to me?

I posted to another DUer that I'm not that familiar with the hearings but have learned since being here that many believe Joe was responsible (maybe that's the wrong word?) for the outcome of the hearing?

I tried to find footage of it but couldn't, so still haven't been able to view it objectively, only hear others' opinions.

I'm not absolving him of anything just because I'm a big Biden fan, he's pissed me off a few times, but the general feeling I get doesn't jibe with who I believe Joe to be, so it's puzzling. I'm ready for enlightenment! :hi:

Or, even better, links?

Thanks.

In the Thomas hearings, Biden's questions on constitutional issues were often long and convoluted, sometimes such that Thomas forgot the question being asked.<54> Thomas later wrote that despite earlier private assurances from the senator, Biden's questions had been akin to a beanball.<55> The nomination came out of the committee without a recommendation, with Biden opposed.<10> In part due to his own bad experiences in 1987 with his presidential campaign, Biden was reluctant to let personal matters enter into the hearings.<54> Biden initially shared with committee, but not the public, Anita Hill's sexual harassment charges, on the grounds she was not yet willing to testify.<10> After she did, Biden did not permit other witnesses to testify further on her behalf, such as Angela Wright (who made a similar charge) and experts on harassment.<56> Biden said he was striving to preserve Thomas's right to privacy and the decency of the hearings.<54><56> The nomination was approved by a 52–48 vote in the full Senate, with Biden again opposed.<10> During and afterwards, Biden was strongly criticized by liberal legal groups and women's groups for having mishandled the hearings and having not done enough to support Hill.<[br />

In a nutshell, Biden gave Thomas a free pass for sexual harassment because he was embarrassed any quetsioning would bring up his own pecadillos. NO BACKBONE BIDEN.

brought up? To the best of my knowledge, there has never been a whisper of sexual impropriety regarding Biden. Prove me wrong. I think you're reading into that part so I don't agree with your conclusion but appreciate the other info you provided - helps me to understand the anger so many here feel. Thanks.

I took off from work and watched the hearings in its entirety.

Biden was head of the Senate Judiciary Committee. He suppressed witnesses that would support Anita's testimony. Witnesses that had the same experiences with Clarence while he was head of the EEOC. You know, the agency that is supposed to stop sexual harassment, among other things.

He allowed witnesses that said Anita had flirted with them, etc. . IOWs - Biden let in testimony to discredit Anita and support David Brock's (Media Matters) phrase "She is a little big slutty and a little big nutty".

Biden's biggest problem - he framed the entire matter as if it was a contest between Clarence and Anita for the same job. Anita was just trying to provide information to the Committee - instead, for dropping by with information every attempt was made to discredit her. Everyone forgot she couldn't "get the job" she was not in line for. The media was encouraged to promote it as a contest between Anita and Clarence and boy did they step up. All of the senators framed it as a contest between those two. Even on the anniversary of the event the media and political class still frame it as a contest between Anita and Clarence.

Second biggest problem - Biden created a media circus. He loved the attention. Someone earlier today suggested that he was trying to use it to promote his Presidential ambitions. I will buy that. While watching the media whore Judge for O.J. Simpson trial I often thought of Biden. It was, and I assume it still is, the most watched hearing in history.

Also, Biden allowed Arlan Specter, Alan Simpson, and other senators to repeatedly attack Anita in a personal way. He could of stopped it. He did not bother. Keeping in mind that this was almost 20 years ago - it is important to remember that sexual harassment on the job was not really considered to be a big deal by most men. They had been doing it for centuries and didn't really mean anything by it. It is one of the spoils of office or position. I would assume that Biden had some fear around the issue.

Having worked on The Hill briefly and continuing to speak with female friends over the decades who remained working on The Hill - it never really slowed down. Can't speak for now -all of my friends got away from that environment.

At the end of the day The Boys Club beat back the women. Those hysterical women who don't understand.

grandstanding and that's not hard to believe, and the reasons I read he gave about, for example, not allowing other witnesses, sounded pretty lame (even without my having a real familiarity with the proceedings).

I just don't understand why. He's always been a champion of womens' rights. I guess that's what baffles me more than anything. And then after all that, he doesn't vote for Thomas.

Guess I'll never really get it, but I sure think you did an excellent job of painting an accurate picture for me -- thanks! :hi:

He was originally anit-choice. I don't know what year he changed. I feel certain it was for political reasons.

coming from a staunch Catholic household (and my dad was a doctor) I can understand that, and would have to agree he probably changed for political reasons. Rather than viewing it as taking away a woman's choice, though, I would venture to guess he was focused more on the Church teaching that life begins at conception, if I'm making that distinction clearly.

head through the membrane. Biden arrived in the Senate in 1973. Roe v. Wade became the law of the land later than year. His early intent was to reverse Roe v. Wade.

JFTR - I am one year younger than Joe. My generation found the idea that life begins at conception to be totally wack. To us, life began when they could breath outside of the host's body. Biden was out of step with his generation.

However, the women and the left just did not bother to engage in the conversation about point of conception after Roe v. Wade. We thought the matter was fixed. But now the view from the right that life begins at conception is dominant and is no longer even a topic for argument. Its now conventional wisdom.

Even today I think the conversation is profoundly stupid and I won't engage just cause its too dumb to consider and is obviously only for the purpose of controlling the female host.

Bring on the Catholics and the Fundies and the Evangie and the Penties. I will just roll my eyes.

I don't believe in any organized religion but I don't disrespect people who sincerely do.

And the power of the Church was pretty strong during the time Joe -- and I -- were growing up.

I was trying to explain that was why he was probably against Roe V Wade, not because he consciously was thinking that a "woman didn't have the right" -- I think he believed it was beyond that. Like I don't believe anybody has the right to take another's life, that's all.

I never agreed with the Church's anti-abortion stance, but I understand how a devout Catholic could.

Go ahead and roll your eyes.

You said: "...I don't believe anybody has the right to take another's life, that's all."

You seem to have missed the point I was trying to make. Its not a "life". But if you call it a "life" then by extension the church or the state or both can stake a claim. They demand that it must be incubated. There is only one way to incubate it. The zygote, and its sponsors, therefore have dominion over the host. Host control has been accomplished.

So, women's bodies belong to the church or the state for nine months if "life" begins at conception.

Like I said, I think its a stupid notion.

I am curious - do they actually speak about abortion or birth control from the pulpit or is that done in school or in private consulation?

bodies belong to the church", rather "belong to God".

And again, I don't agree with the Church's teaching on this - just kind of guessing where Biden was coming from.

The first time I voted the two hot tickets on the ballot were making it illegal to discriminate against homosexuals and legalizing abortion. I don't remember if they spoke about it from the pulpit (at the time I was still going to Mass w/my parents) but it was at least known that the Church felt it was wrong to discriminate against homosexuals since they were God's children (and since this was post Vatican II they could even get into Heaven without being Catholic!!!!) but that abortion was murdering a one of those children of God. I think they talked about it in High School - but honestly, it's been so long I really don't know for sure. I would guess they do because it is a Church Teaching, after all. I bet they're glad the gay issue isn't on the ballot these days.

I always felt that it was more of the Church wanting more "members" to fill their collection plates on Sundays, like being against birth control. I voted for the gays, and for abortion, but I wasn't a devout, practicing Catholic like Joe was and still is.

I am always curious about how churches teach doctrine.

Back to the original issue regarding the Senate Judiciary Committee and Joe Biden -
Did you see this article?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/schuster-institute-for-investigative-journalism/news-flashback-anita-hill_b_771697.html


The two linked articles from 1993 and 2003 revisiting the Hill-Thomas hearings are essential reading for all women.

feeling that Joe -- and a slew of others, to be fair -- really handled this waaaaaaay wrong. It's my hope it would be far different today since it's so much more on the radar. I've often thought that if Anita Hill hadn't had the guts to do what was right, sexual harassment would have been ignored for a lot longer. I can't get over her bravery. We all owe her our appreciation.

I was just barely a teenager at the time, but the thing I most remember was watching my die-hard Limbaugh-listening Republican mom start to become more and more visibly uncomfortable with the way the right was treating Anita Hill.

and that was forgotten too.

I realize I just made two giant assumptions. Hope that is ok.

20 yrs ago my kids were little now they are all grown. My 28 yr old remembers the hearings. We always watched Cspan and to this day he still turns it on and NPR in the car, it drives his girlfriend nuts.

20 yrs ago my kids were little now they are all grown. My 28 yr old remembers the hearings. We always watched Cspan and to this day he still turns it on and NPR in the car, it drives his girlfriend nuts.

Until I listened to the reporting this morning, I had forgotten Anita Hill had taken and passed a polygraph test over the incident. I guess there isn't enough craziness this campaign season - time to throw in Coke cans with pubic hair on them.

both the wife of a Supreme Court justice and being active in politics.