Flashback: I wonder if Biden regrets not allowing witnesses who would have corroborated Anita Hill?

New York Times, Published: October 11, 1991

WASHINGTON, Oct. 10— Senator Joseph R. Biden Jr. plays down the notion that his career could be damaged by the outcome of the Senate Judiciary Committee's hearings into the sexual harassment accusations against Judge Clarence Thomas...

In a telephone interview Wednesday night, Mr. Biden made it clear that he viewed the problem before him as how to walk the fine line between guaranteeing that a person who sexually harassed a colleague did not acquire a lifetime appointment to the Supreme Court and fairly treating both Mr. Thomas and Ms. Hill.

"I must start off with a presumption of giving the person accused the benefit of the doubt," he said. "I must seek the truth and I must ask straightforward and tough questions and in my heart I know if that woman is telling the truth it will be almost unfair to her. On the other hand, if I don't ask legitimate questions, then I am doing a great injustice to someone who might be totally innocent. It's a horrible dilemma because you have two lives at stake here."...

Biden said the Thomas case had created the toughest ethical choice he had faced that came to light publicly. On other occasions as Judiciary Committee chairman, he said he had been made aware of unsubstantiated reports of wrongdoings by nominees that he did not divulge in order to protect their reputations.

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9D0CE6D71E3EF932A25753C1A967958260

It's all very inconvenient, you know.
:kick: & R

ugh

which was very BIG of him, very open-minded and sincere. And the country can breathe easier knowing Arlen had searched his soul, while we live with the consequences for decades.

when Obama announced Biden as his running mate. This was posted on DU last week. Nice of the NYT to catch up. ;-)

See again, it was a 1991 article. The information was all out there. He was selected anyhow!

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

There were 48 "Nays" - all Democrats. One question in retrospect is why there was no filibuster. (There was no cloture vote)

I don't think it would have made a difference, but I wonder if Snowe and Collins, for example were Senators back then, would they have voted to approve?

Packwood voted against him, but no other Republican did. It is interesting to think if the Maine Senators would have - there was often less party line voting.

I do think more testimony might have had an impact, but there is no way to make the case. It would have shown a pattern.