Glad Joe apologized, as best he could, to Anita Hill

[mobeau69]

Last edited Fri Apr 26, 2019, 01:36 AM - Edit history (1)

but I'm afraid that doing so 27 years after the fact and 2 weeks before he declared is not a good look. Little wonder she didn't accept it.

[walkingman]

1. 2020 will be very interesting. I wonder if the majority of Dems want a moderate candidate or

a progressive one? Will Joe embrace progressive issues or Bernie embrace moderate issues? I'm not sure what the majority of Dems actually want. For me I think progressive is the way to go. However, I am much more liberal than my neighbors.

[mobeau69]

3. howard Dean on Anderson Cooper tonight offered some interesting insights.

He said the election is a long way off and a lot can happen in 8 months. He said the party is being taken over by 35 yo moderately liberals. Said the party is not the same party it was a few years ago, let alone the party of 2008 or even 2012. Said he wouldn't consider running given his age. He believes we should let the young people run the party and we (his generation) should help them.

Very good interview.

[elleng]

4. Sounds interesting.

[mobeau69]

5. It really was. I've always liked Howard Dean a lot.

[elleng]

6. I have too.

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

8. Yes, Howard Dean has some thoughtful ideas and someone who should be listened to.

Bernie & Elizabeth 2020!!!
Welcome to the revolution!!!

[lapucelle]

59. Yes, Howard Dean and Hillary Clinton are doing excellent work in the PAC they co-founded in 2017

Onward Together.



https://www.onwardtogether.org/program/

https://www.onwardtogether.org/mission/

[still_one]

23. His Bloombereg interview this morning was very different, including calling "hooey" that

the party was moving to the far left, and used the midterms as the example:

what he did say was that younger people, women, and people of color are taking over, but made it very clear in the interview, that except for a few who happen to be getting alll the attention in that demographic, the characterization that the party was moving way to the left was hooey, and gave specific examples of the midterm to prove his point

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/videos/2019-04-25/biden-s-biggest-challenge-is-age-former-dnc-chair-dean-says-video

[Indygram]

34. He said in the prior interview being referenced that it's only a few that are going far left

But that in the midterms the majority of the newly elected Representatives are actually far more moderate.

[still_one]

85. I agree Indy

[DURHAM D]

2. It was a non-apology.

Joe Biden Apparently Called Anita Hill Just to Waste Her Time

Hill told the Times that she left the conversation “feeling deeply unsatisfied.” The paper notes that she “declined to characterize his words to her as an apology,” and also said that she could not support Biden’s presidential run. Hill added that he needs to take accountability not just for how he treated her, but for the damage those hearings did to people around the country.

Seems to me that he called her just so he could say he called her before he announced. Guess he didn't think Anita would make a comment given that she is deeply private and not inclined to give interviews.

Also from the article -

Most recently, at the Biden Courage Awards in New York City in March, he told the crowd that Hill “paid a terrible price.” “She was abused in the hearing,” Biden said. “She was taken advantage of. Her reputation was attacked. I wish I could have done something.”

Biden acts like he wasn't there, let alone in charge of those hearings.


https://www.thecut.com/2019/04/joe-biden-non-apology-anita-hill-2020.html

ETA: Once again Biden is using Anita to enhance his chance to win the White House. That is why he behaved as he did in 1991 when the cameras were all on him and that is of course why he is using her this week.

[mobeau69]

7. Listening to Joe again today I could only think to myself;

been there, done that.

I believe one of the younger candidates in the top tier will emerge as our nominee. I want somebody I can get excited about, like Pete or Kamala. It's time to pass the torch to a new generation of Americans.

[Demsrule86]

54. No elections are about winning not passing torches...

We must defeat Trump or we truly are finished,

[mobeau69]

56. I agree, we must defeat trump.

I'm just not buying into the narrative that we have only one candidate that can do that.

[BlueStater]

75. ...

[redstateblues]

83. Both would lose to Trump. That's all that matters at this point

[LanternWaste]

84. I too want a young airline pilot I can get excited about, regardless of inexperience.

The pretty wrapping on a present is much more critically important than the present itself.

[samnsara]

102. maybe after we have fixed this mess. we need a seasoned cook in the kitchen now...not any that

..have to look up the recipe in Betty Crocker. Their time will emerge when its right...but maybe not during a crisis when the damned kitchen is burning up.

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

10. Didn't sound all that great to me either, the more I looked into it.

Bernie & Elizabeth 2020!!!
Welcome to the revolution!!!

[still_one]

21. how upset were you when Saners refused to apologize for supporting anti-choice candidatae Heath Melo

[NYMinute]

50. lol nt

[BlueStater]

12. His campaign just started and already he's botching things up.

That's just pathetic. He really thought no one would question the timing of this?

EDIT: More polite phrasing. It's late and I'm tired.

[mobeau69]

14. You know, the average American doesn't do nuance

but they can sure as hell see this for what it was.

[Indygram]

35. Nothing sucks worse than a non-apology when you have been deeply hurt

For example... "I'm sorry IF I hurt you," is NOT an acceptable apology. If you know you should apologize then there is no "IF" in the equation. A real apology can NEVER include an "if" or "but" or seek to minimize or avoid taking responsibility. For example...a real, genuine apology would sound like: "I am sorry that I didn't understand the impact of sexual harassment back then. I handled that hearing badly and I played a part in how badly you were treated. If I could go back and do things differently I would. I know you were harmed and I hope that one day you will be able to forgive me. Do you have any suggestions on policy or steps that could be implemented to make sure no woman gets mistreated in this way again?"

Real apologies include: Saying I'm sorry, taking responsibility for what you did that hurt the person and asking what you can do to fix it.

Something like that would fix it, even if it took him too long.

I like Joe and am glad he jumped in the race.

[Demsrule86]

53. I don't care about this...and think that it won't work...

I am interested in only one issue...how do we get Trump out.

[Honeycombe8]

9. What exactly are people upset about regarding Biden and the Thomas-Hill part of the hearing?

I watched a lot of that hearing. I remember some things that were disturbing. I don't remember Biden's behavior being bad. I remember him as being deferential to her, respectful, not flippant.

I remember Orin Hatch was obnoxious. And Thomas was outrageous.

Did he say something? Or...what was it?

[PoliticAverse]

11. You can hear Hill talk more about it here...

in her discussion about it from 2014...
https://www.huffpost.com/entry/anita-hill-joe-biden_n_5002189

[Honeycombe8]

16. Thanks. nt

[mobeau69]

13. Here's some background

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

[Honeycombe8]

15. Thanks. Interesting. nt

[loyalsister]

18. He had a chance to lead and didn't

If he had taken Hill seriously and listened to other witnesses, a precedent might have been set. One saying that it is not an option to elevate a man professionally when he has sexually harassed women.
Such a precedent would have been valuable in 2016 and during the Kavanaugh hearings.

[Honeycombe8]

19. They did call another witness, one of the articles says. She decided not to testify.

She wrote her testimony down,and it was distributed (meaning it wasn't read, I'm sure). Written testimony isn't worth much, because you can't ask questions.

I think part of the issue was this was 27 years ago, and the first time this issue had come up. No one was sure how to handle it, and it was an uncomfortable subject. Sounds like Biden was too weak in controlling the Republicans. Oddly enough, I don't remember much about the Republicans' questions to Hill.

I think some people are thinking it was like a trial. It was a confirmation hearing, which is totally different.

Also the fact that Thomas was an Af. American made the situation touchy. As it was, even with weak leadership, Thomas still pulled the infamous "lynching" line during the hearing.

I'd have to see the hearing again to get the full picture. My recollection is that I thought that the men (and they were ALL men...they still are) didn't believe her, or didn't think the behavior was serious enough to get in the way of the confirmation. But Biden voted against the confirmation.

I believed her, and I couldn't believe they confirmed him. But Republicans are that way, as we've seen. I don't know that anything would have changed that result.

[loyalsister]

28. No it wasn't like a trial

unless you were Anita Hill and the Democratic majority on the committee led by JB fell for Thomas' strategy to cry lynch mob and attack the accuser defense. It's well known that the reason many victims don't report is because they know they will be blamed, ridiculed, and belittled. It's interesting how they were worried about appearing racist with regard for Thomas, but not when it came to taking a Black woman seriously.

Not taking a brave stand when the moment presented itself was a serious failure. And, that particular moment in history is significant and especially relevant right now. Anita Hill didn't get the support she should have gotten then, and I think she has a point now. JB and the senate majority had a chance to draw a line in the sand and didn't. Now Anita Hill speaks out every single time the issue resurfaces for good reason. She is still fighting this battle for other women.

[Honeycombe8]

60. It's not a big deal to me. It is to some, I guess. It was almost 30 years ago.

This is one reason why Senators and representatives don't get elected to be President. There's just too much to attack from years ago.

It was a different era. Hill is of course upset that her testimony didn't prevent Thomas from getting confirmed. Biden isn't the reason for her woes. It was the way things were back then (and to a lesser degree, still is).

I'm a female, a feminist, and have had serious incidents with men, at work and not at work. So I take this seriously. But when you're talking about trash talk, which was the harassment she was reporting, I think men back then (and maybe now) don't regard that as a big deal. It's bad enough to keep someone from being a S.Ct. Justice. But some don't regard it as serious enough to "ruin a man's career." That's not Biden's fault. I think people are blaming Biden for the way people thought back then, and that Thomas was confirmed.

As for me, I don't recall blaming him back then, so I wouldn't blame him now, almost 30 years later. He was courteous and respectful to Hill. He didn't handle the hearing very well, maybe. He was, in the end, a typical male Senator. One reason it's high time we have more females in Congress. But not calling experts to explain sexual harassment to the Senators is not realistic. It wasn't a trial. The point of the hearing was not to show how Thomas' actions or words had a bad effect on Hill, and why she was still upset. She may have thought that's what it was about. It was to show how his words or actions made him unworthy of being a Justice. That could have happened, even if Hill hadn't been badly affected by his words. I think she blamed Biden for the whole sordid affair, but it wasn't his fault, IMO.

[shanny]

65. "Not a big deal."

Clarence Thomas still sits on the Supreme Court, and has now been joined by Barf Kavanaugh.

Nothing to see here. Move along.

[Honeycombe8]

86. Biden is not responsible for the way others in the Senate voted. He voted against him.

Yes, it is time to move on.

[shanny]

87. nope

He is responsible--not for voting (nice straw man)--but for the way the hearings were conducted. He probably thought it was well in the past, until rump nominated Barf Kavanaugh and it all came back up again, like bad seafood.

Nearly 30 years on and women are still dealing with this crap. He could have dealt with it differently then, but instead chose to be all bipartisan-y and collegial. That is not a leader in my book and so, yes, I have moved on.

[Honeycombe8]

88. Nope.

He's not.

You were right. It's time to move on. He will be our candidate against Trump, most likely. Question is: How much do you want to cripple him by harping on something three decades ago, that many don't see as a big error, to begin with? Up to you. Do you want Trump out of office or not?

[shanny]

90. Nope

Not up to me. Up to voters, including women, minorities, younger generations. We'll just have to see how much his past actions injure him with them.

Seriously "many don't see as a big error"? Lordy Lordy is that a tone deaf statement.

[Honeycombe8]

92. Lordy Lordy...where do people get this stuff?

I saw almost the entire hearing. I'm female and a victim of sexual harassment myself (more than a few times).

Biden wasn't perfect, like no human is perfect. But he was respectful to Hill, kind, and ran an orderly hearing. It was a hearing for the confirmation of an Af. American man to be a S.Ct. Justice, so the hearing was extra sensitive in that regard.

He didn't do anything wrong, that I saw.

[Honeycombe8]

99. Yes, indeed, he did lead. He showed the world how to handle the two sensitive subjects....

at an important confirmation hearing. It was very tricky, esp for the era. Sexual harassment in the workplace allegations, and the rare Af. American Judge appointment to the S.Ct. Two ultra sensitive things. Biden handled it very well.

No one...no one...could have been more respectful, kinder, or deferential to Prof. Hill than Biden was. No one.

Nothing was going to change the votes, though. Just like with Kavanaugh.

You say "one saying that it is not an option to elevate a man professionally when he has sexually harassed women." But that's not the job of a chairman of a committee. His job was to conduct a fair and thorough hearing on the confirmation of Thomas. His job was not to lecture other Senators, try to talk them into changing their votes, or take a side.

I think people misunderstand what the purpose of the hearing was and the job of the Chairman of that Committee. It was NOT a trial or hearing on Prof. Hill. It was a confirmation hearing on Thomas.

As for stating that Thomas had sexually harassed women, I remind you that the hearing was not a trial on that. Thomas has never admitted or been found guilty of that. So the Senators could choose to believe Hill or not, and even if they did, could choose to confirm Thomas anyway, or not. Biden chose not to confirm him.

There's no story here, except for people desperate to slow him down in his run for the Presidency. I am not a supporter of Biden at this time. I may end up being. But like castigating Sanders for making money from writing a book, I choose not to ding our own candidates for reasons I think are unfair.

[still_one]

20. He didn't give Anita Hill her rigtful time, including witnesses to testify on her behalf. Several

times in the last couple of years he made an apology for the way he handled tings, and didn't give Anita Hill the time she deserved. Some people are critisizing that apology, and saying it was a non-apology. It is what it is. The fact is a good number of those so-called 'critics" of Biden are there because they favor another candidate.

Anita Hill is legitimately upset, and she will never accept his apology or forgive him. That is the way it is.

It doesn't mater that Biden voted against Clarence Tomas, or that his nomination would have gone trough regardless, she was slighted, and she angry.

For the others that are professing how upset they are about this, a good number of those who were are the harshest critics were never going to vote for him anyway.

[Cha]

22. Kurt Eichenwald Researches Biden's Role in Anita Hill's Testimony, And We All Should Know It

Have you seen this, still_one?

Kurt Eichenwald is not a Biden supporter..

I will admit that I really don’t want Biden to run. I think his time has passed, and like a certain other old person running (and a couple of younger ones), their main traits are being white, male, and recognized. But I think it’s good for all of us to know the story of what happened with Anita Hill’s testimony and the part played by Biden. It’s not what I’ve heard, and I think it’s far better if we all know the real story.

Link to tweet

Link to tweet

Link to tweet

More to the story..

https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2019/4/24/1852950/-Kurt-Eichenwald-Researches-Biden-s-Role-in-Anita-Hill-s-Testimony-And-We-All-Should-Know-It?utm_campaign=trending

[still_one]

29. No I didn't, and I appreciate that Cha. What I remember of those hearings was that Biden was

respectful, but he did grandstand a lot, tough it was against Clarence Thomas, and should have given Anita Hill not only more time, but allowed her witnesses to testify.

Anita Hill not going to accept any apology from him. There is too much anger in her from this, and that is not going to go away for her.

However, as for those who are supporting other candidates, and are "so outraged" by this, it is pure politics in my view

One of the candidates endorsed an anti-choice candidate Health Melo, and strangely they don't seem upset that that candidate refused to apologize for endorsing an anti-choice candidate.

The voters will decide whether his apology is sufficient or not.

Anyone who thinks that Biden is going to drop out or stop his campaign because some are viewing his apology as
insufficient, is pure wishful thinking on their part.

Ironically, some of the same people who are outraged by this, do not think that Al Franken should have resigned. Which only demonstrates that for some it all depends on their political agenda

[Cha]

31. I hadn't, either, and I thought it

was well researched, and shed more light on the history back then.

Personally I think that Joe Biden has done a lot of evolving throughout his life.. just like a lot of us have. Thank Goodness.. I would hate to think I had to stay static.

Some are calling him "status quo" but I don't think there's any danger of that. Biden relates to people and is a good listener.

He would have had an excellent answer for the WOC @ #SheThePeople about "White Nationalism".

[still_one]

32. We are on the same page on this Cha. Thanks

[nolabear]

89. Cha, that was amazing. Thank you so much for posting it.

[Cha]

91. You're Welcome, Nola!

You can OP it if you want.

[Honeycombe8]

97. That jives with my memory. I watched almost the whole hearing. Biden did nothing wrong.

He was gracious, respectful, and kind to Anita Hill. The other Senators were allowed to ask questions (like the Democrats were allowed to ask Kavanaugh questions). Biden voted against the Thomas confirmation. He DID ask one of the other women to appear to testify, but gave her a choice to submit written testimony. She chose written.

Unlike the Kavanaugh hearing, the Chairman of the committee was NOT on the side of Thomas. His job was just to ensure that a fair confirmation hearing on Thomas occurred. Anita Hill was just part of that confirmation process.

Whether I end up supporting Biden or not, this hearing that occurred almost 30 years ago would have nothing to do with that. He has nothing to apologize for, IMO.

This was the first kind of hearing like this to occur, and the first and last that involved both an Af. American being nominated to the S.Ct. AND sexual harassment in the workplace allegations. This would be heady stuff these days, but imagine it in a different era. It occurred before some of the posters here were even born.

[shanny]

67. "his nomination would have gone t(h)rough regardless"

Maybe. Maybe not. Democrats held 57 Senate seats at the time and the vote was 52-48. How many could have been swayed by more time and more witnesses?

[Honeycombe8]

98. You've been misinformed. The Committee did invite one of the wits to testify...

she declined, and opted to submit written testimony instead.

Biden did nothing wrong, that I saw at the time, or that I see upon reflection. He's human, of course. I'm sure he made mistakes, like you and I would have. Anyone who had been chairman at that time would have made mistakes, whether it had been Warren or Sanders or Pete. But he did a fine job, and no one could have been more respectful, gentler, and kind to Hill than Biden was.

Some people think that the Chairman has the ability to prevent other Senators from asking brutal, direct questions. He doesn't. The Democrats had their chances to ask Kavanaugh brutal, direct questions, and they used that to their full advantage (kudos to them). But these things don't change votes. Senators were going to vote how they were going to vote, no matter what. Esp. since Thomas was an Af. American Judge.

How ironic that when it serves the purpose of the moment, it doesn't matter how someone voted. But when it does serve a purpose, it does matter how someone voted. (I'm thinking of "It doesn't matter that Biden didn't vote to confirm Thomas," but "It does matter that Biden voted for the Iraq War." )

Any Chairman of that Committee would be blamed today for not stopping the Thomas confirmation and/or the Senators not believing (or not caring) Prof. Hill.

[treestar]

93. And does anyone expect Hatch or Thomas to apologize?

I think people are no longer really worried about the issue of sexual harassment. This is just being used as a Biden thing, just like Hug-gate. If they can't be positive about the candidate they want rather than finding things to use against other candidates, maybe their candidate is not so good.

[BannonsLiver]

17. Her acceptance isn't required for him to be the nominee or elected president.

The acceptance of those who live in 1991 is not required, either.

[Cha]

27. According to Kurt Eichenwald's research, who

is not a Biden supporter..

I will admit that I really don’t want Biden to run. I think his time has passed, and like a certain other old person running (and a couple of younger ones), their main traits are being white, male, and recognized. But I think it’s good for all of us to know the story of what happened with Anita Hill’s testimony and the part played by Biden. It’s not what I’ve heard, and I think it’s far better if we all know the real story.

Link to tweet

Link to tweet

Link to tweet

More to the story..

https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2019/4/24/1852950/-Kurt-Eichenwald-Researches-Biden-s-Role-in-Anita-Hill-s-Testimony-And-We-All-Should-Know-It?utm_campaign=trending

[BannonsLiver]

72. Thanks for posting. There is a lot of revisionism going on here with Biden-Hill

This is a good counter to the horseshit.

[still_one]

30. She would not have accepted it regardless. The anger is to great from her perspective. I have too

Last edited Fri Apr 26, 2019, 12:50 PM - Edit history (1)

wonder though how many people who are upset about this, were also upset when one of the candidates refused to apologize for endorsing an anti-choice candidate, or how many of those people are upset that Al Franken resigned?


Anita Hill has a legitimate grievance because she was not afforded the time to tell her story, or have her witness testify. From her perspective it maters little that Biden voted against Clarence Thomas, or that Thomas was going to be confirmed regardless. She was not given the time she deserved.

However, for some others, based on their contradictory positions on other cases regarding possible sexual harassment, one suspects a political agenda

[DURHAM D]

36. Why do you keep saying she would not accept his apology?

Anita Hill is a kind thoughtful smart woman. If he had ever actually apologized for using her she would have accepted it. He has never once taken responsibility for what he actually did.

Anita has not built her career on his abuse and the attention directed at her as a result of her testimony. Instead she has done everything she can to stay out of the spotlight including moving from a small town in Oklahoma to a big city where she could hide in the crowd. She has declined almost 100% of the media requests for interviews for the past 28 years. She has no political agenda except to speak when absolutely necessary about the continuing problem of abuse. She is extremely shy and never wanted any attention directed at her but knows she has a unique place in history and feels the heavy weight of responsibility to speak from time to time. If she had it to do over you would not know her name.

Also, what is this framing "or have her witness testify"? They were not her witnesses. They were witnesses who had information about Thomas, not Anita. Unfortunately Biden set up the entire hearing as if Thomas and Hill were applying for the same job and they would battle to the death. It was a television spectacle created by Biden and he loved the attention until he didn't.

Anita is not angry. That is a cheap emotion and not something anyone who knows Anita would use to describe her. In fact, most of her friends would say she should be angry but she is not. It is just not who she is.

[still_one]

82. Because that is my opinion. We simply disagree

[Indygram]

38. I like Biden a lot, but he NEEDS to give a real apology or it won't go away

When you have done something that caused harm to another person you cannot give non-apologies because those only cause more harm because they minimize the person you hurt.

Examples of fake/non apologies and why they are so bad:

"I'm sorry IF I hurt you." - You would not be apologizing unless the person was hurt. You know you hurt them. Using "if" is a weak-ass way to try to absolve yourself and dodge taking responsibility.

"I'm sorry you were hurt." - Again, dodging responsibility. If you played a part in what happened...OWN it, apologize and demonstrate that you want to do better in the future.

"I'm sorry about what you went through." - Same as above...if you contributed to the harm you MUST take responsibility and ask what you could do going forward to do better.

Genuine, sincere apologies consist of:

1. Expressing remorse/saying you are sorry
2. Taking responsibility for what you did/said that caused harm
3. Ask what you can do to avoid making the same mistake in the future or to fix things

If Biden gives a proper apology I suspect she will be satisfied. I currently am estranged from two family members who betrayed me and hurt me terribly. I would love to be able to forgive at least one of them and move on and heal and perhaps attempt to try to rebuild trust that was destroyed. However, they refuse to give a real, genuine apology that takes responsibility for what they did and the harm they caused. I deserve a real apology and will not accept anything less than that. Fake/non-apologies suck and they actually are more hurtful than no apology at all. I can relate to Anita Hill, and if she got a non-apology then she will not be satisfied. I will respect Biden a lot more if he handles this the right way.

I don't dislike him, think he's a good guy and am not opposed to him running. I just hope he fixes this.

[Demsrule86]

46. Nope, those who support other candidates want an apology tour instead of a primary run

and it won't happen. Move on...it was 30 years ago in a different world.

[Indygram]

52. Biden is actually my second choice, so that's not true

If he chose NOT to reach out to her to try to apologize then I would not say he needs to fix it, but he chose to contact her. By doing that and then giving a non-apology he stepped in it and really needs to do it right.

I've vocally defended him over the whole overblown touching nonsense. This is different...ONLY because he reached out to fix it and bumbled it. Because he reached out he has got to go back and do it right or else it's going to keep haunting him. I hope that he doesn't disappoint me on this because if he doesn't do the right thing I will think less of him for it.

[BannonsLiver]

70. It's clear she holds Biden more responsible than Thomas

And so do a lot of people around here. I’m not sure why she feels that way, but I am sure those around here that do are 100 percent about politics and how continuing to bring up this very old, very tired, and very litigated story over and over again might somehow boost their own candidate. It has very little to do with hill or the issue.

[Voltaire2]

78. Er what? Thomas was the perp. The Senate committee, including Biden,

allowed this inappropriate idiot to get on the court and did so by basically ignoring Hill's testimony.

"But, she added, she cannot support Mr. Biden for president until he takes full responsibility for his conduct, including his failure to call as corroborating witnesses other women who were willing to testify before the Judiciary Committee. By leaving them out, she said, he created a “he said, she said” situation that did not have to exist."
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/04/25/us/politics/joe-biden-anita-hill.html

The committee allowed an abuser on the court. The committee is responsible for that, and Biden led that committee.

So there are two things here that are related but separate, each of which caused Anita Hill harm: the abuse by Thomas, the decision of the Judiciary Committee to ignore that abuse. I am confident that Hill holds Thomas entirely responsible for the abuse he perpetrated on her. She obviously also holds Biden primarily responsible for the decision to ignore that abuse.

Your attempt to conflate these two acts, and then to dismiss her with "I’m not sure why she feels that way" is disingenuous at the least.

[BannonsLiver]

79. Sigh...

[Voltaire2]

80. exactly.

Oops somebody noticed what you tried to do.

[BannonsLiver]

81. Uh huh

Which candidate do you hope relitigating this helps? Bernie? Mayor Pete?

C’mon don’t be shy.

[treestar]

94. There was no chance it was going to prevent him from getting on the court

And it is even worse now - look at Kavanaugh!

This is not an issue that prevents right wingers from getting on courts.

The time to control who gets on the courts is the election of the President and Senators who pick them. How did Biden vote on candidates for the Supreme Court? But even more importantly, who would he choose? As opposed to who Dotard would choose? OMG people!

Do you really want us to go after Bernie on his 70s essays and his prior campaigns sexual harassment issues? We have sense not to do that, because if Bernie is the nominee, he is going up against the Pussy Grabber and who cares about his old essays?

[Voltaire2]

96. Er what? Biden was the chair of the judiciary

committee. He could have rejected Thomas. This wasn’t an essay he wrote in the 70s that was of no consequence. It was a political decision he made in 91 to ignore Hill.

[treestar]

103. Biden did vote against Thomas.

You seem to be responding to some other post.

[Raine]

33. Too little and way too late

done for political expediency not from the heart with any genuine regret, probably would've been better not to have even bothered.

[Demsrule86]

42. Nobody cares.

[BannonsLiver]

71. Bringing Hill up at all is 100 percent about political expediency for biden's Opponents.

[ucrdem]

37. For what, exactly ?

Serious question. What exactly did Biden do that requires an apology, which in any case he has delivered repeatedly?

[beachbum bob]

39. we are still waiting on Gillibrand to apologize to Al Franken, when is that happening?

[hlthe2b]

40. indeed.. And she continues to exploit it, rather than suggest she should have allowed him

a defense and time for factual investigation. At least Biden has the context of the times and where society was at the time as a minimal defense and more importantly his evident evolution/growth and actions (including the violence against women bill) since then.

[Little Star]

44. +1

[SharonClark]

61. And still waiting for an apology from all the Franken thread highjackers

And an apology from Franken for resigning and running away.

[Demsrule86]

41. Who cares? A lifetime ago. And maybe the fact he wrote the violence against

Women act is more relevant. Keep trying.

[mobeau69]

45. "Who cares" is what I hear from a lot of trumpers.

When I point out to some trumpers the Access Hollywood tapes, the mocking of the disabled reporter, the good people on both sides statement, etc. etc. they often reply "who cares".

Their blind loyalty to the orange idiot is beyond frustrating! "Who cares" doesn't cut it.

[Demsrule86]

47. How dare you compare my support of Biden to a Trumper.

I don't care about a 30 year old event brought up only to discredit Joe Biden. the only candidate who can win a general in my opinion.

[mobeau69]

51. You asked "who cares". Obviously, a lot of good people care.

He's the only candidate that can win the GE? Come on, that's a fear tactic. We have a lot of good, young candidates that can beat trump in the GE.

[treestar]

95. It does while the Orange Idiot is POTUS

and you will care a lot less if he ends up with a second term. Obviously the voters don't care that much and how many of them were small children or not even born yet when all this happened?

[Demsrule86]

43. Will your candidate apologize for firing a Black chief of police who was trying to

out racist cops? Supposedly, the cops remained in their jobs. I expect the tapes will come out at some point,

[mobeau69]

48. They will as soon as the judge says they can.

You don't know the why as to why he fired the chief. He has a different explanation. But we shall see and I say let the chips fall where they may.

[Demsrule86]

49. Fair enough.

[watoos]

55. I tried warning people

when it was all fun and games when it was just Bernie and Tulsi getting bashed.

I said that none of our candidates are perfect and that I could trash any candidate that they pick. I choose to let Republicans do the bashing.

Not saying we can't bring out differences, e.g. candidates who don't take big money rank higher up on my list.

[mn9driver]

57. There are reasons why someone might prefer another candidate over Biden.

This issue should not be one of them. The Thomas hearings took place almost 30 years ago. Biden apologized to Hill during his opening statement of those hearings. Biden voted against confirming Thomas. Biden has worked for the past 30 years to protect women from sexual harassment and violence.

Making the 2020 democratic campaign for president about about intra party attacks on Biden because of Anita Hill will accomplish exactly one thing:

The re-election of President Trump.

[Indygram]

58. Biden is my second choice and here is why I think this matters...

Yes, it's from 30 years ago and had he left it alone then I would agree. However, he DID reach out to her and try to apologize. By doing that he sent the message that it does matter and he wanted to apologize to her. Once he made that step he NEEDS to actually get it right.

A non-apology is NOT an apology...it is an attempt to absolve yourself from any fault and avoiding taking responsibility. It's a bad look.

Saying, "I'm sorry for what you went through," does not acknowledge the role he played in it happening and that is what makes it a non-apology. He needs to do better than that. Since he chose to reach out he needs to make sure that he does it properly because reaching out and giving a non-apology is more harmful than not apologizing at all.

[mn9driver]

62. The apology game.

I believe Biden was sincere both in his apology in 1991 and his recent one. Anita Hill is perfectly entitled to refuse to accept it. That is what this is about.

Anyone who feels that Biden was insincere in one or both of his apologies is free to say so. But parsing and apologysplaining is a rigged game. There is no way for the apologizer to win it, no matter how sincere they are.

Hill has not and isn’t going to accept Biden’s apology. Ok. Her right and her choice. If we are still talking about this a year from now, Trump will have already won.

[Indygram]

64. "I'm sorry for what YOU went through," is a NON-apology

This is actually starting to piss me off that people are acting like this isn't important. I LIKE Biden. I have DEFENDED him on the violation of personal space thing. Acting like this doesn't matter does NOT help him at all.

To me, this is a MILLION TIMES more important and serious than the hands on shoulders stuff. By refusing to take responsibility and acknowledge that he played a role in a woman's mistreatment after being sexually harassed it shows me that he is mother effing TONE DEAF and has learned NOTHING in the last 30 years.

He reached out to her because he wanted to fix it before announcing and instead of giving her a sincere apology he failed miserably by giving a non-apology, which is essentially a slap in the face and just minimizes and dismisses the harm done to her YET AGAIN.

You can't accept a NON-apology. If an apology does not say, "I'm sorry for what I...." then it's not taking responsibility. He has to recognize what he did wrong, FFS.

[WhiskeyGrinder]

63. "As best he could."

That says it all, right there.

I believe Anita Hill.

[BlueFlorida]

66. Anita Hill was deeply hurt and it was not entirely Biden's doing

She would never be able to forgive anyone involved. I wouldn't be able to if I were in her shoes.

Nevertheless, Joe did apologize as best as he could. That is all that matters. Her acceptance was not expected.

My speculation is that if Joe is POTUS, Anita Hill will be in the short list for a supreme court nominee. That is the kind of a guy Joe is.

[DURHAM D]

68. Anita Hill is 62 years old.

She will not be going on the court. Her work is in academia and although she is more qualified that Thomas to be named to the court she knows it is not the correct background.

[BlueFlorida]

73. Yes, I overlooked her age nt

[Paladin]

69. I'm glad Anita Hill responded like she did.

No matter how many years have passed, no matter how heartfelt Biden's apology was, that sick travesty of a hearing shouldn't be erased from public memory.

And I say the foregoing as someone who believes Joe Biden would be a fine president.

[BlueFlorida]

74. That memory is being used politically by some quarters

It is not relevant to who Joe Biden is today.

[BannonsLiver]

76. There is also a lot of revisionism going on as well.

[emmaverybo]

100. Big time

In the context of the times, a potentially racist attack on Thomas—by an all-white committee—trumped a sexist attack on Hill. That the attack on her was also implicitly racist was not at the forefront of debate around the proceedings. Hill never claimed racial discrimination, but Thomas did, loud and clear.
Cynically, conservative leadership had rigged the nomination in appointing a far right-wing African-American to fill Thurgood Marshall’s seat.
Thomas played his role to the hilt. He righteously portrayed all black men in history unjustly profiled as sexual abusers, and still denied power and influence by white men monopolizing it.
Committee Dems appeared cowed, neutered in their ability to challenge Thomas.
Deconstructing the event, it is safer to call out the white players for their misogynist attitude, their lack of sensitivity to Hill’s lonely, and as things got ugly, humiliating position before them and Thomas, than it is to call Thomas on playing the race card conservatives planted as a spanner in the works and that he used to shield his sexism.

[Eliot Rosewater]

77. ONE thing matters and ONLY one thing

who can beat putin and his puppet...

who can beat corrupt GOP states who dont count votes cast by Democrats...

Whoever that is gets my vote

[samnsara]

101. ...at this point if NO candidate grabs a female in the crotch and..

..brags about it on tv..then they have my full support.

And if no candidate walks into a room full of naked teen girls to gawk at them...im with them.

And if they DONT have sex with a porn star.(s)... when their spouse is in the hospital ( for whatever reason) Im voting for them.

And if they DONT call nazis 'very fine people'......Im also with them.



thats my purity test.