It is interesting that Anita Hill is allowed to attack Clarence Thomas but he is criticized for defending himself. Even if what she claimed was true in amount to nothing more than boorish behavior-not even close to the escapades of Bill Clinton -a man the left holds near and dear. So until we see similar criticisms of Clinton’s sexual-harassments please excuse us if we find it hard to be sorry for Anita.
What reality are you talking about Bob? Who “allowed” Hill to do anything and when? She didn’t even respond publically about his book until after he attacked her on TV. Exactly when were you asked to feel sorry for her?
I believe it is
Thomas who is dredging all of this up to sell books on his million plus publishing deal. Hill is not the one who went on a national campaign and started smearing him with criticisms of his lack of judicial record (as he did on her employment record).
Back before the confirmation, she was an individual minding her own business teaching law in Oklahoma when the FBI came to her door and then the Senate required her testimony. She was not some Washington mover and shaker pushing the partisan agenda. It is the same old party line that says she was out to “attack” him which has been disproven by credible journalists in the subsequent years.
Please don’t try to bolster your point about Thomas and Hill with more tired Clinton references. Two wrongs do not make a right! I wasn’t talking about Clinton nor am I to the left of center, so why bring it up?
There were many
thousands of hours of people talking about Clinton’s womanizing for years all over TV, radio and papers and it still comes up, so why you have not heard sufficient coverage critical of his behavior excapes me. He had to have received as much negative publicity as anyone in the past 20 years! In fact, it has come up again with his wife running for office, but that is another discussion entirely.
Thomas’ bitter diatribe in his book only diminishes his stature as a sitting Supreme Court justice. In fact, writing such a book while sitting on the SCT is highly unusual and inappropriate IMO. His undistinguished and extremely brief judicial record leading up to his nomination would not garner many readers, so he had to add some juice to his story to sell books. He must know that no white man with his level of experience would have received the nomination, so he goes overboard being defensive.
His characterization of himself as a poor black victim of mean old white liberals who were plotting against him is the opposite of what he is always telling people about forgetting about color, working hard and moving on. He is just putting one more nail in the hypocrite coffin. He has been shown to have benefited from affirmitive action himself, yet now he argues against it and denies benefiting. (At least I’m honest enough to say that it is possible that I might have unknowingly benefited from it at some point.) He wants to move on with his life and make millions off old news from more than a decade ago at the same time. He does not appear to have learned anything from the lessons of his relatives that he has cited to the media.
If he was some liberal black Democrat crying victim I cannot imagine the same people would be jumping to his defense. Poor, poor Clarence who got victimized right onto the SCT.
