Biden Answers Q on Clarence Thomas

[Gabi Hayes]

Q 1: Whatever happened to Angela Wright's appearance before your committee?

[gateley]

1. So glad you asked:

Biden was misinformed about her desire to testify. It appears his counsel was communicating with Angela Wright's attorneys but not keeping Biden closely in the loop.

BIDEN: "I believe (her testimony) could have (changed the course of history).

I'm actually looking for more info which I've seen before, because all the charges and accusations I've read here about Biden's participation really concerned me.

But as I'm searching, don't forget

Biden voted AGAINST Clarence Thomas.

[Gabi Hayes]

2. nice try. I know he voted against Thomas. it didn't matter by then.

If you're interested in more than disingenuous, non-sound-bitey responses, read this, which includes your quote, in a more meaningful context:

http://www.aliciapatterson.org/APF1602/Graves/Graves.html

[Gabi Hayes]

3. and the only 'confusion' over Wright's testimony

was that generated by Biden, trying to cover his complicity.

the alleged confusion is dealt with in the link, as well

[Gabi Hayes]

4. not that it matters.....MBNA Joe has as much chance of gentting the nomination as

I do

[Think82]

6. nice attack job, a - hole

You wouldn't bother attacking Biden if you didn't think he could win, so you're own insecurity is exposing you for the hypocrite you are. Plus that article, like Pirhana explained, is total BS.

I did like this quote from Biden:
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.

BINGO! That's a President right there.

[Gabi Hayes]

14. that's not very nice

as I said in another link, anyone who's ignorant enough to think Biden isn't VERY culpable for Thomas' seat on the SCOTUS would do well to read Strange Justice, the book whose response brought David Brock to the forefront....and one of the things for which he most abjectly apologized.

and concentrate on Biden's very sleazy role in the affair.

I won't try convincing all you delusionals who think he has a chance to get the nomination, but this is for others who care to find out what really happened.

this is a very funny thread, btw!

[rpritchard]

7. Give me a break! MBNA Joe?

Come on, Joe Biden has taken less money from banking cooperations than the majority of the other candidates on both sides of the aisle. As a strong proponent of public financing ever since 1974, when it was nearly unheard of, Joe Biden has smallest tie to any corporation or lobbyist organization. Drop your nonsense; it is a sheer falsity!

[jillan]

9. hi rpitchard! Welcome to DU!

:hi:

[gateley]

10. Hi rpritchard! Welcome to DU and to one of topics Biden supporters deal

with frequently. Your response was RIGHT ON!

So glad you're here!

:hi:

[PatSeg]

11. Welcome rpritchard

Good response. There will always be people who will attack any candidate that is running. It is part of politics and I'm learning not to take it too seriously anymore.

[Gabi Hayes]

13. is this fantasy?

http://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/contrib.asp?CID=N00001669&cycle=2004

[jillan]

16. That was from 2004 - compare that to this

http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/select.asp?Ind=F03

[jillan]

5. That link is such a bunch of bullshit. Have you even read it or did you just cherrypick what you

wanted from it?

Anita Hill's attorney responded to Biden's comments months after Biden made them. He took Biden's comments out of context and then replied to them.
Of course he is going to slant it anyway he wants to.

And I do not give a shit if you vote for Biden or not.

[gateley]

8. I wasn't trying to change your mind or convince you you're wrong, so I really

wasn't 'trying' anything.

Biden has to take responsibility for whatever he may have done in the past as well as what he does currently. I don't make excuses. But in this instance, as I said, I've read other, broader coverage and it was enough to ease my concern. This is a subject that always pushes buttons and all I want to do is give an honest representation of his actions.

The reason I was even willing to look further into it is because of his anti-Thomas vote, and his subsequent landmark amendments for women's rights. That he would railroad Anita Hill just didn't jibe with the other actions he's taken in this area.

I promise, when I find the info I'm thinking of, if you're sincerely interested, I'll contact you. If you're not open to considering it, I won't bother you.

[Debi]

12. I've seen this link used repeatedly by people who want to attack Biden

on the Clarence Thomas hearings. It's amazing that people who want to discuss the 'truth' about it have no problem with a link that describes an interview with Biden almost a year after the hearings and an attorney's response to Biden's comments a year after that.

More importantly, why aren't you attacking all the Democrats who voted FOR Clarance Thomas? What? Because they're not running for President? :shrug:

[Gabi Hayes]

15. if you don't believe that link, try some of these. see whose side you seem to be falling in with

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=angela+wright+live+testimony&btnG=Google+Search

[Debi]

17. Thank you for the additional links.

Obviously this issue is very personal to you and you will hold Sen. Biden personally responsible for Clarence Thomas's ascent to his seat on the Supreme Court indefinitely. You've already stated that you don't care that Biden voted against Thomas for reasons other than Hill's testimony and his no vote wasn't good enough or too little too late. Yet, again, you are not attacking the Democrats (or republicans for that matter) who heard the same testimony as Biden but still voted FOR Thomas.

Since I will never know what was in Sen. Biden's mind during the hearings or the time leading up to the hearings I can only guess that he saw the situation with Anita Hill as only one piece of the puzzle in the nomination of Clarence Thomas. And that he had not only Hill's testimony in mind, but Thomas's other positions/behaviors as well when he voted NO.

[PatSeg]

19. Joe Biden's explanation

"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. ...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... 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."

[1932]

18. Biden guaranteed Thomas's nomination by ending testimony before hearing all the witnesses.

The no vote didnt' matter.