The recent cover of the Weinstein story brought back Anita Hill
whose testimony brought the term "sexual harassment" to the forefront, to HR manuals to the work world.
And then I remembered how shabbily Joe Biden, then the head of the Judiciary committee treated her.
From
https://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/08/23/biden-and-anita-hill-revisited
Some women, invariably of Senator Clinton’s age, who were actively involved in opposing Mr. Thomas’s confirmation in 1991 recall the narrow vote (52-48 in favor) as “a day of shame for the Senate and a day of shame for women,” as one lawyer said this week. The episode in time evoked strong reactions from women across the country, who viewed the judiciary panel as 14 white men who too easily dismissed Ms. Hill’s accusations and who did not allow the testimony of other women who might have corroborated or helped buttress her account to prove a case of sexual harassment.
and
From not permitting other witnesses like Angela Wright to testify who would have been favorable to Ms. Hill, to not permitting affidavits from an expert on whether a pattern of behavior needed to be established to prove sexual harassment, Ms. Ross concluded: “He did everything to make it be good for Thomas and to slant it against her.” (Mr. Biden and his staff at times indicated that Ms. Wright and others weren’t willing to testify, but the record and books written since appear contradictory, as these women were held waiting in the wings for days.)
=====
Thus, I think that if Biden were to consider running in 2020, this will come back.
= new reply since forum marked as read
