AP: Obama chooses Biden as running mate

Source: MSNBC.COM

Foreign Relations Committee chairman has globe-trotting credentials

MSNBC staff and news service reports
updated 6 minutes ago
WASHINGTON - The Associated Press has learned that Delaware Senator Joe Biden is Barack Obama's choice to be his vice presidential running mate.

Biden, who has served in the Senate since being elected at the age of 29, is the chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee and will add his foreign policy expertise to the Democratic ticket.

In recent years, he has traveled to Afghanistan and Pakistan two times and to Iraq eight times. He returned Monday from a fact-finding trip to Georgia.



Read more: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26010055 /

They were wrong both times.

Yet half of DU is jumping overboard in the certainty that the MSM is somehow right on this one.



I'll believe it when Obama tells me it's true.

https://donate.barackobama.com/page/contribute/splashon...

Biden will hurt us, not help us.

you are full o' this? Wait. I typed that wrong. SHIT. there we go.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

He will be a fine VP, an asset to the campaign, and a great adviser to Obama.

Pelosi doesn't have enough power to dictate to ANY Senator what will go down.

You say he made a backroom deal. Any details?

By their very nature, I don't know about any backroom deals, so I can't comment on that.

But in the hearing itself, he was on the right side. I especially remember how handled this witness whose testimony was, basically, that Clarence Thomas was so cool that he could have had any woman, so why would he harass Anita Hill? It was ugly.

Biden sliced this guy to ribbons, with a wolfish grin. I thought: "I want him on my side."

I think Biden will fight for women's issues in the debates and (if we win) in office. I hope you'll feel more kindly to him when he wins some battles for us.

Admittedly, I'm a bit of a fan because I live in the state next to his and have been watching him for a long time.

You're absolutely right about the bankruptcy bill. It was indefensible. It knocked him out of presidential contention.

Jersey Pat here, now Maine PAt and for 20 years Philly Pat.
I too remember the Thomas hearings I had just moved to Maine and the plumber and my daughter & I listened to the whole thng through for 2 days. ( well the ;plumber only stayed for one, but he just charged for several hours of work and the rest of time sat & listened fascinated.)
That was when I delveloped an animus for Orin Hatch, Strom Thurmond and several others!
A reminder.in the book Blinded by the Right, David Brock tells how his book against Anita Hill, was more fiction than fact, and reveals that he later became aware of Thomas' fondness for porn!
The Banckruptcy billwasn't terrific, but condsidering how my two Senators in Maine totally embraced it.......AND BUSH, I see where he can take a different tack.

Lived in a small NY City apartment.

I remember well the sleaziness of Hatch & Thurmond.

Clarence Thomas for Thurgood Marshall! What a joke.

the fantastic newd book "The Dark Side" --- the new book on Cheney and the administration ---

I believe she was one of the co-authors of "Strange Justice" ---

and I'm really surprised that more here aren't familiar with that book -- !!!

As to some of the details --- and it's been a while since I've read the book ---

Biden had engaged in discussions with Prof. Anita Hill and her legal team and those
many representing her that the witnesses for their side AGAINST Clarence Thomas would
be heard.

Rather than doing that --- witnesses who would have SUNK Clarence Thomas and shown him
to be the pervert he is --- Biden let a guy trying to claim that Anita Hill -- "a little
nutty and a little slutty" being introduced here --- had been chasing after him.

After letting this guy go on for hours --- into the wee hours of the morning --
Biden would not call the Hill witnesses. That was it!!

And the guy he let slash Anita Hill for hours finally admitted he couldn't recall whether
Anita Hill had called him or he had called her!

In other words, Biden let a farce go on which harmed Prof. Hill while he did not permit
truly valid witnesses to be presented --- witnesses who would have specifically testified
as to Thomas' nature -- his constant sexual harassment of women at the EEOC.

Read the book --- it's quite something to see this history --

but a sad history of Biden ---

It was utter betrayal of not only his personal committments, not only women --- but the
nation!!!

And, the biggest hand played for the GOP side ---

The only thing I can say without having read Mayer's account is we have to make a distinction between (1) hideously corrupt neocon Republicans and (2) Democrats who didn't fight effectively against hideously corrupt neocon Republicans. I count myself in that second category.

Sounds like Mayer is saying Biden also belongs in category 2. Considering all the damage Thomas has caused, I would like to think Biden has learned something from that losing battle.

And I still think he was the most effective Democrat in those hearings, but that's based on 20-year-old impressions, and I'd like to hear others' memories.

I'd especially like to see those hearings made available on CSPAN or somewhere. In retrospect, I (1) wonder if the sexual harassment issue obscured other issues like legal philosophy and (2) remember the cool poise of Hill, and her subsequent dignified career (she's now at Brandeis).

Biden rocked in the Clarence Thomas nomination process. The only senator among the group that did.

I would never have believed he would give it to Biden as Biden is another Bush rubber stamp who puts his foot in his mouth almost every time he opens it and this is truly a blow to those who wanted real, progressive change. I'm voting for them but only because the alternative is unspeakable. I don't expect much change coming from this duo but I am willing to be surprised. The Russians say that hope is the last thing that dies. With this pick it is obvious that hope is really the only thing we have left. I sure wish we had more than that.

1) The Repugnants can run commercials showing Biden attacking Obama when both were candidates for the Democratic Nominee, and use anti-Obama quotes that Biden likely said;
2) Biden has past plagiarism issues (though I concede these were some time ago, still, Rush & Co. will bring them up)
3) Biden does nothing to help win any toss-up state (Recall how LBJ secured the victory for JFK by putting Texas in the Dem column?)
4) Biden voted for the Iraq war, and now how is Obama going to attack McCain for doing the same?
5) Biden pisses off the base by voting for the credit card companies, campaign donations will now not be as high as they could have been
6) Biden has said some strange things at points
7) Biden doesn't seem to me to be a messenger for *change*
8) Now let me state that I AM DEFINITELY NOT ageist, but understand that some in the country may well be. And will Biden himself without a doubt feel like running for president after 2 Obama terms at the age of 73?
9) There were better candidates available. Clark especially, but also Richardson (who I don't think really attacked Obama much while a candidate), Senator Brown of Ohio, Sebelius, Kaine, etc.

The McCain ads showing Biden praising McCain and dissing Obama are already on air.

They had 'em made up in advance.

On your other points, you are precise on each and every one.

Oh well, at least we've got Delaware wrapped up.

would challenge him, not be a yes-man?

So Joe Biden calls Obama on his "inexperience" ... I would think that Biden would then advise him if he thought Obama was making a bad decision where some experience would come in ...

That's the way I see it ... and I would love to point that out to the people who quote the McClame ad ... "Biden wasn't the guy who was in charge of vetting the VP choices like Cheney was, right?"

I couldn't have put it as succinct as you.

Now half of Obama's contributions came from the public and they're rewarded with a DLC VP--!!!

Biden is also too old for this -- 73?

And he's already suffered a brain aneurysm --

This is also the guy who should have prevented Clarence Thomas from reaching the Supreme Court
and he betrayed Anita Hill and many of the lawyers he had made commitments to regarding
allowing witnesses against Clarence Thomas to come forward.

Rather than honoring those "by his word" commitments, he turned and presented trash-talking
against Prof. Anita Hill ---

and the true trash ended up on the Supreme Court ---

and just coincidentally turned out to be one of the Gang of 5 votes which put Bush in the
White House ---!!!

If you want more betrayal, Biden is the way to go ---

Nice guy -- personable - if you really don't know him ---

and what foolish statements he made re Obama in the primaries!!!!

It looks like a DLC/Money Men choice ---

In other words, Obama made a poor choice here --

Psst, Biden isn't 73, he's 65, about 8 years younger than McCain.

Read Biden's interrogations of the witnesses during the Thomas hearing and report back to us, okay?

Biden is PERFECT for the job, for VP or President.

I notice you bashed Biden but didn't provide an alternative. Could it be no one is acceptable to you? (uh oh, here come Kucinich, I'm sure!!)

of Democratic Party betrayals . . .

Notice I put a question mark after 73 . . . ???? i.e., 73/?

Maybe you should read something on the Biden/Thomas hearing ---

try "Strange Justice" which was co-written by Jane Mayer who just did "The Dark Side" --- !!!

Biden blocked the witnesses from coming forward who would have confrimed that Thomas

is a huge pervert and what his actual behavior at the EEOC was.

Biden also permitted Hatch and Simpson and other GOP to have a field day attacking

Hill as "a little bit nutty and a little bit slutty" in every way possible without

his interceding.

I watched every moment of those hearings --- so I'd suggest YOU get caught up on what

really went down -- BETRAYAL by Biden.

If you want more Pelosi/Reid-DLC betrayal, Biden is your man --- !!!


Biden also hasn't spoken out for universal health care ---

Just what is it that you think you're gaining here via a man who has spent his life

in the Senate making deals?




Or are you suggesting this is change?

You said, quote:

"Biden is also too old for this -- 73?"

Too old at 65? Were you not sure that he was 73, or maybe 72, or maybe 74?

Allowed Hatch and Simpson attack Hill? Do you know the rules of Senate hearings? In order to stop them from speaking they'd have to probably go as far as calling her a fucking whore - anything less than that and they have to be allowed to speak.

If you watched every moment of those hearings, how could you have missed this? Here's Thomas talking about the very first question to him during the hearings, from Senator Joseph Biden:

"Senator Biden was the first questioner. Instead of the softball questions he’d promised to ask, he threw a beanball straight at my head, quoting from a speech that I’d given four years earlier at the Pacific Legal Foundation and challenging me to defend what I’d said: “ ‘I find attractive the arguments of scholars such as Stephen Macedo, who defend an activist Supreme Court that would . . . strike down laws restricting property right.’ ” That caught me off guard, and I had no recollection of making so atypical a statement, which shook me up even more. “Now, it would seem to me what you were talking about,” Senator Biden went on to say, “is you find attractive the fact that they are activists and they would like to strike down existing laws that impact on restricting the use of property rights, because you know, that is what they write about.” "

If you watched every moment of those hearings, perhaps you dozed off during the vote in which Biden voted NO to sending Thomas' nomination to the full Senate and he also voted AGAINST his nomination during the full Senate vote.

"Betrayal by Biden"???

and the suggestions that Hill was probably using some of the dialogue to dress up her
charges against Thomas?


Maybe you missed Simpson suggesting that information defaming Hill was "being thrown
in over the transom of his office in heaping piles" --- ?

Maybe you missed the GOP framing Prof. Hill as " a little bit nutty and a little bit slutty" - ??

No, Biden did not defend Hill from any of that -- he just let it go on and on.


As for Biden's questions to Thomas . . . did he ask him why his fellow students at Yale well
knew him to be a "lover of hard core porn" --- and a frequenter of the porn booths?

Did Biden ask Thomas if "eat from my ass with a spoon" was one of his favorite sayings as
suggested by a number of Clarence Thomas' FRIENDS????


Responding to the puerile comments ---

I'll be voting for Obama just as we voted for the Democrats in 2006 --
most of us notice some BETRAYAL, however, by Reid/Pelosi --- and DLC ---
So what I'm saying to you is . . . VOTE, but don't be suprised that you get more of the same.

Someone mentioned that Biden was 73 . . . I queried that with a 73/?
I'm responding to that because it seems so important to you ---

True, Biden did vote "NO" on Thomas --- but he permitted Thomas's name to come to the floor
rather than holding a private hearing, making clear that Thomas was unsuitable, and moving on
to the next nominee.





Well DAMN, you convinced me! Thanks to you I'm voting for McCain (HAHAHA!!!)
You said, quote:

"Biden is also too old for this -- 73?"

Too old at 65? Were you not sure that he was 73, or maybe 72, or maybe 74?

Allowed Hatch and Simpson attack Hill? Do you know the rules of Senate hearings? In order to stop them from speaking they'd have to probably go as far as calling her a fucking whore - anything less than that and they have to be allowed to speak.


If you watched every moment of those hearings, how could you have missed this? Here's Thomas talking about the very first question to him during the hearings, from Senator Joseph Biden:

"Senator Biden was the first questioner. Instead of the softball questions he’d promised to ask, he threw a beanball straight at my head, quoting from a speech that I’d given four years earlier at the Pacific Legal Foundation and challenging me to defend what I’d said: “ ‘I find attractive the arguments of scholars such as Stephen Macedo, who defend an activist Supreme Court that would . . . strike down laws restricting property right.’ ” That caught me off guard, and I had no recollection of making so atypical a statement, which shook me up even more. “Now, it would seem to me what you were talking about,” Senator Biden went on to say, “is you find attractive the fact that they are activists and they would like to strike down existing laws that impact on restricting the use of property rights, because you know, that is what they write about.” "

If you watched every moment of those hearings, perhaps you dozed off during the vote in which Biden voted NO to sending Thomas' nomination to the full Senate and he also voted AGAINST his nomination during the full Senate vote.

"Betrayal by Biden"???

...it takes a very extreme comment to be shut down during a Senate Hearing. From what I read in your latest tome here, it appears that you would have preferred to have written Biden's speech and list of questions.

Bottom line, Biden asked some pretty tough questions, voted NO to send to the full Senate and NO on the confirmation vote. To you, however, that wasn't enough. What would have been enough? Lynching on the floor of the Senate?

By the way, tell me, are Obama or Biden members of this DLC you seem so obsessed about?

Finally, I will vote, and any "Democrat" who thinks Obama/Biden will be "more of the same" after eight years of bush/Cheney is delusional!

and rightly so ---

WHERE would we ever see again someone waving a "The Exorcist" and suggesting that a witness
bringing information and evidence to the committee was simply engaging in a sham taken from
a book about the devil? If you don't find that extreme, you're avoiding reality.


...it takes a very extreme comment to be shut down during a Senate Hearing. From what I read in your latest tome here, it appears that you would have preferred to have written Biden's speech and list of questions.

I would prefer that YOU understand the nature of the PERVERSIONS of Clarence Thomas --- and
they had little to do with the question posed by Biden!

And re this . . .

Bottom line, Biden asked some pretty tough questions, voted NO to send to the full Senate and NO on the confirmation vote. To you, however, that wasn't enough. What would have been enough? Lynching on the floor of the Senate?

Evidently, you didn't read or understand that Biden BLOCKED the Hill witnesses --- members of
the EEOC --- from coming forward to testify as to the atrocious behavior displayed by Thomas
at the EEOC and his sexual harassment of women there . . . ???? Or are you ignoring that info?

Biden should have arranged that the Hill witnesses be heard in private by all the members of the
Committee -- and if that didn't stop the nomination then get the info/details of their testimony
out to the public and the full Senate. In other words . . . ensure that such a PERVERTED
individual as Clarence Thomas not reach the Supreme Court!

And are you actually saying here . . .

By the way, tell me, are Obama or Biden members of this DLC you seem so obsessed about?

that you don't understand what the DLC is . . . ?

The DLC is the corporate-wing of the Democratic Party whose agenda is to move the party to
the right -- i.e., to deliver "Republican almost lite" to you . . .

Evidently Obama is not a member --- Biden is ---

Re this . . .

Finally, I will vote, and any "Democrat" who thinks Obama/Biden will be "more of the same" after eight years of bush/Cheney is delusional!

The 2006 vote produced a Democratic congress -- but little change --
Pelosi/Reid reversed course the moment they were elected ---
If you want more of that, you'll get it with Biden ---

...Buh bye!

but maybe no one will notice ---

You're droning on your fantasy about what Biden "did", which is totally untrue, about 20 years ago, and now you're saying "memories having nothing to do with the discussion"?

Nice going, Al Zheimer. Listen, you're not going to get over your misguided obsession of Biden and this mystical DLC, that's all too clear. So, you vote your way, I'll vote mine. Case closed.

P.S. - you don't even get the Goldwater connection, do you?

and the failure by Biden to permit the witnesses from the EEOC against Thomas to appear --

reminds you of extremism on the part of a poster telling you about it -- ?

Clear thinking there . . . !!!

...the discussion evolved into a berating of the DLC and the fact that it appears that nothing other than the extreme left is good enough for you.

But, back to Biden and the hearings - two things (one I've already expressed):

1. Even though Biden asked very tough questions and voted against the nomination both in committee and the full Senate isn't good enough for you. ALL the blame for Thomas getting confirmed falls right on Biden's shoulders (?) Remember, even though Biden was chairman of the committee at the time, there were 15 members of the committee and 100 members of the Senate. Biden did his job and did it very well on THREE occasions during that period.

2. You keep going on about Biden not permitting witnesses against Thomas to be heard. Care to share the circumstances and witnesses in question? Don't have time to go on another wild-goose chase.

Thanks.

and are you suggesting that to oppose corporate interests in the Democratic party is to be
part of the "extreme left" --- ?

Whatever that means to you, at any rate . . . ?
Maybe you should define that thinking -- ?

You don't seem to get the idea that Biden made commitments to Hill's legal team and
also informed the public that the witnesses would be heard.
Biden broke that commitment . . . .

The Hearings were about "SEXUAL HARASSMENT" . . . .

The evidence presented by Hill and her legal team and the witnesses should have been heard
in private --- before they were FORCED to open the hearings, before they were forced to
have the hearings. And I presume you know how that came about?

In other words, the very evidence of almost a dozen or so witnesses testifying to the truth
about Clarence Thomas' SEXUAL HARASSMENT" of somen at the EEOC would have stopped the
nomination. That's what should have been done.

As Sen. Paul Simon said later -- "had they known at the beginning what they learned
about Clarence Thomas later, he would not have been considered."

All Biden had to do was to follow his commitment to the lawyers on the Hill side
and the Clarence Thomas nomination would have been over.


As to the witnesses for the Hill side -- these were former EEOC and government workers
who were witnesses to Thomas sexual comments and harassment of females -- some as
witnesses, some having experienced it personally. At least one was an EEOC speech writer.
There were approximately a dozen or so of them.

You can find all the info on this in a book which Jane Mayer/"The Dark Side" co-wrote with
others ... it's called "Strange Justice" ---

Your library will probably have it ---



Yes there was GOP pressure --- in fact there was pretty much a GOP circus going on slandering
Hill. But Biden and the Democrats should have and could have put an immediate STOP to it all
by permitting the witnesses to testify.

....now that I've read up on it, it seems the only people who are against it are those who are against it, but I haven't seen one single articulated reason why they're against it.

All I see is the oft-repeated "they're the corporate-wing of the Democratic Party". However, try as I might I can't find any direct reference to the DLC on the Democratic National Committee's website, but I do see a number of comments saying that the DLC certainly is NOT part of the Democratic Party! So, where does this characterization of the DLC being a "wing" of the Democratic Party come from? Lacking any definitive answer, I'd have to assume that the only people who continue to claim it is are disgruntled democratic (with a small "d") extremists.

Now, to address some of your specific points:

"are you suggesting that to oppose corporate interests in the Democratic party is to be part of the "extreme left" --- ?"

No, but your reference now to "corporate interests" in lieu of "corporate-wing" is different. I don't think there is a single entity in this country that does not contain "corporate interests", from the Catholic Church, Baptist Church, United Way, to General Motors, Boeing, IBM, etc....

Whatever that means to you, at any rate . . . ?

See my intro - an undefined loathing and characterization of something without specific reasons leads one to think that the person expressing those thoughts is an "extremist" in my mind. Now, if we could ever get some of those DLC haters to actually say WHY they hate the DLC other than parroting "they're the corporate-wing of the Democratic Party" without any further specific elaboration this claim might be more believable.


You don't seem to get the idea that Biden made commitments to Hill's legal team and also informed the public that the witnesses would be heard.
Biden broke that commitment . . . .

From what I can find, Angela Wright was subpoenaed by the Committee, and Biden wanted her to testify. For whatever reason she didn’t, I don’t think anyone definitively knows why she didn't. But, what I do know is that Biden sent a letter to Angela Wright saying that if she wanted to testify she could. But she didn’t. The only other witness “prevented” from testifying was Rose Jourdain, whose sole purpose was to corroborate Wright’s testimony. Without that testimony Jourdain’s testimony was pointless.

Here’s the letter:

Dear Miss Wright:
It is my preference that you testify before the Judiciary Committee in connection with the nomination of Judge Clarence Thomas. But, in light of the time constraints under which the Committee is operating, and the willingness of all the members of the Committee to have placed in the record of the hearing the transcripts of the interviews of you and your corroborating witness, Ms. Rose Jourdain conducted by the majority and minority staff, I am prepared to exceed to the mutual agreement of you and the members of the committee, both Republican and Democrat, that the subpoena be vitiated.
Thus, the transcribed interviews of you and Mrs. Rose Jourdain will be placed in the record without rebuttal at the hearing.
I wish to make clear, however, that if you want to testify at the hearing in person, I will honor that request.
Sincerely,
Joseph R. Biden, Jr.

You have no opinion on corporate interets controlling the Democratic Party?

and you don't understand what the objections to it may be ????

Yet you suggest that anyone who is anti-DLC is on the "extreme left" . . . ???


Check the DLC website . . . and I'd suggest that you stay tuned because you don't seem

to be hearing much!


Perhaps you could try this . . . a corporate wing of the party suggests corporate interets

being fulfilled via the party . . . ? Notice any Money Men influencing the party?


Re the hearings ....

The nation was waiting to hear the Hill witnesses testify --

Jourdain was willing to come -- and Wright was there --- all waiting.

Jourdain would not only back up what Hill and Wright were saying she would have also

made clear that this was common with other female employees. Some of those employees

were also ready to testify. About a dozen in all. Jourdain was, if I recall correctly,

an EEOC speech writer.



I'm not clear what this letter is . . . .


Here’s the letter:

Dear Miss Wright:
It is my preference that you testify before the Judiciary Committee in connection with the nomination of Judge Clarence Thomas. But, in light of the time constraints under which the Committee is operating, and the willingness of all the members of the Committee to have placed in the record of the hearing the transcripts of the interviews of you and your corroborating witness, Ms. Rose Jourdain conducted by the majority and minority staff, I am prepared to exceed to the mutual agreement of you and the members of the committee, both Republican and Democrat, that the subpoena be vitiated.
Thus, the transcribed interviews of you and Mrs. Rose Jourdain will be placed in the record without rebuttal at the hearing.
I wish to make clear, however, that if you want to testify at the hearing in person, I will honor that request.
Sincerely,
Joseph R. Biden, Jr.



Miss Wright was there ready to testify as others were --- and Ms Jourdain was ready to come

from her hospital bed to testify. There were approximately a dozen of them ready to testify.

This was in the middle of the night --- as everyone had been waiting for hours --- that he

subpoena was pulled.

Again --- Biden had made an agreement with the Hill lawyers that their witnesses would be

heard and that agreement was broken. In the middle of the night that commitment was broken.



PS: . . . just for the record . . .

I would also make clear that Biden stalled the calling of these witnesses in prime time and

into the late hours of the night and then into the late hours of the morning as he put on

a young male whose main purpose was to try to suggest that Hill was pursuing him. It was

huge nonsense and after almost five hours, he admitted that ---

is an excellent source for info on the Thomas hearings and what actually happened ---

the book is called "Strange Justice" and she co-wrote it ---

You have no opinion on corporate interets controlling the Democratic Party?

I don’t know that “corporate interests” control the Democratic Party. Other than vague allusions to this, anything specific?

Check the DLC website . . . and I'd suggest that you stay tuned because you don't seem to be hearing much!

I have, and other than the fact that the five or so members mentioned on that website are also in Congress, what am I supposed to see? There are 50 Democratic Senators and about 230+ Democratic Congressmen – five of them being in this clandestine group hardly makes up a group that is “controlling”.

Perhaps you could try this . . . a corporate wing of the party suggests corporate interest being fulfilled via the party . . . ? Notice any Money Men influencing the party?

Well, neither the DNC nor the DLC call the DLC the “corporate wing of the party”, only some here on DU and fringe websites use that term.

Re the hearings ....

The nation was waiting to hear the Hill witnesses testify -- Jourdain was willing to come -- and Wright was there --- all waiting.

The nation has been waiting to hear bush resign, but that doesn’t mean it’s going to happen!

Jourdain would not only back up what Hill and Wright were saying she would have also made clear that this was common with other female employees. Some of those employees were also ready to testify. About a dozen in all. Jourdain was, if I recall correctly, an EEOC speech writer.

No, Jourdain was a corroborating witness for Wright, not Hill. If Wright would not testify then Jourdain’s value as a corroborating witness was pointless.

I'm not clear what this letter is . . . .


Here’s the letter:

Dear Miss Wright:
It is my preference that you testify before the Judiciary Committee in connection with the nomination of Judge Clarence Thomas. But, in light of the time constraints under which the Committee is operating, and the willingness of all the members of the Committee to have placed in the record of the hearing the transcripts of the interviews of you and your corroborating witness, Ms. Rose Jourdain conducted by the majority and minority staff, I am prepared to exceed to the mutual agreement of you and the members of the committee, both Republican and Democrat, that the subpoena be vitiated.
Thus, the transcribed interviews of you and Mrs. Rose Jourdain will be placed in the record without rebuttal at the hearing.
I wish to make clear, however, that if you want to testify at the hearing in person, I will honor that request.
Sincerely,
Joseph R. Biden, Jr.

It’s a letter that Biden sent to Wright before her scheduled (yes, SCHEDULED) testimony. It’s in the records, surprised you haven’t heard of it!

Miss Wright was there ready to testify as others were --- and Ms Jourdain was ready to come from her hospital bed to testify. There were approximately a dozen of them ready to testify. This was in the middle of the night --- as everyone had been waiting for hours --- that he subpoena was pulled.

The subpoena wasn’t “pulled”, Wright was offered an option of allowing her telephone interviews by the Democrats and the Republicans to be entered into evidence or testifying in person. The decision was to use the interviews. As you can see in Biden's letter, if Wright wanted to testify she could have.

Again --- Biden had made an agreement with the Hill lawyers that their witnesses would be heard and that agreement was broken. In the middle of the night that commitment was broken.

Biden may have made an agreement with Hill (no evidence of that, but whatever), but unless those (third party) witnesses testified the agreement was rendered useless.

PS: . . . just for the record . . .

I would also make clear that Biden stalled the calling of these witnesses in prime time and into the late hours of the night and then into the late hours of the morning as he put on a young male whose main purpose was to try to suggest that Hill was pursuing him. It was huge nonsense and after almost five hours, he admitted that ---

Another unsubstantiated, at this time, claim. I haven’t been able to find anything on this.

it was the last straw for me. i joined the green party after that.
biden was a joke, and he did not let the other woman accusing thomas testify...anglea wright. he also said hill's lie detector test was "irrelevant." i will vote for this ticket, but i also have reservations about obama's choice.

http://www.aliciapatterson.org/APF1602/Graves/Graves.ht...
WAS ANITA HILL'S LIE DETECTOR TEST RELEVANT?

BIDEN: Even though the rules of evidence do not pertain (in congressional hearings), they do give us great insight into the best way to shed light on the truth....Case in point: Lie detector tests. I fought for over 20 years (against) their admission (in court) because every civil libertarian, including every women's group, has argued against them because they're used against people wrongly. There is no conclusive evidence they are accurate.

OGLETREE: Rumors had been circulating rampantly that Anita Hill was unwilling to take one. And that would have been the story --unwillingness to take one....I think the point is that if Anita Hill had failed the lie detector test, I assure you those would have been the first words out of Sen. (Orrin) Hatch's or Sen. (Alan) Simpson's mouths. The reason it was so important is that they were calling her a liar. Now these things aren't used in court very widely, but they are important investigative tools. In fact, every major federal and law enforcement agency uses lie detector tests.

When we made the decision to take the lie detector test, we realized there was no fair process. That they were not going to ask Anita Hill probing questions about what happened. They were going to ask her whether she had had a traffic ticket, maybe who she slept with, who her roommates were. And on the other hand, Judge Thomas said, `I'm not going to talk about my private life at all'....

The real problem is that the rules of evidence were totally irrelevant. I mean you had Alan Simpson and others reading from newspaper clippings or letters from people who weren't under oath. Sen. Hatch apparently enjoyed reading from The Exorcist. Talk about rules of evidence. What is the relevance of that?

Anita Hill

Photo courtesy of AP Wide World Photos

WAS CLARENCE THOMAS' ALLEGED PORNOGRAPHIC MOVIE-VIEWING HABIT RELEVANT?

BIDEN: Women will come in and say, `Why didn't you let in (evidence of Thomas' alleged pornographic movie viewing habits)?' How about if there was evidence that SHE liked pornography? Would it have shed any light on whether or not she was telling the truth? (Such information about Thomas) would have been independent verification that Thomas watched pornography, not that he talked to her about it, any more than if he had said, `This woman is promiscuous,' and then I established that this woman had slept with four different men in one week. Would that have proven whether she was telling the truth or not? Just because she slept with four men, does that mean she can't be harassed? It would have been prejudicial if it were in a court room, and it would never have been allowed.

OGLETREE: Thomas' (alleged pornographic movie viewing habit) was certainly relevant because it ties directly into the allegations and his denials. He denies pretty emphatically ever having made the comments that Professor Hill says he made. And part of the proof of her allegations are some of the movies. Like the movie "Big Bad Mamma Jamma" that reportedly was on one of his lists and that described the woman with large breasts.

And it's not whether or not he has an interest in pornography. That's not the question. The question is whether or not he made these particular comments and what would be the corroborating circumstances to show that he made them....I don't think that is disqualifying in terms of his serving on the Supreme Court, but I think it is a question of whether he was honest about a whole host of questions.

WOULD ANGELA WRIGHT'S TESTIMONY HAVE CHANGED THE COURSE OF HISTORY?

Angela Wright is another woman who had worked for Thomas at the EEOC who had been subpoenaed by the Senate Judiciary Committee. She told committee staff who interviewed her that Thomas had pressured for her dates and made inappropriate comments about her appearance, once asking at an EEOC seminar, "What size are your breasts?" Although she was standing by in Washington, she was never called to testify at the hearings.

While Biden says he "insisted" that she testify, Wright and her attorney say that was never communicated to them. Instead, they recall that Biden's counsel Cynthia Hogan suggested that Wright ask the committee to withdraw her subpoena. She refused, saying if the committee wanted to withdraw it, that was their perogative, but she was willing to testify if the committee called her.

In a last-minute, late-night maneuver, Wright and her attorney say Biden offered the concept of a letter releasing her from the subpoena but putting her testimony and that of a corroborator in the official record. Wright acceded to the offer, explaining that her consistent position had been that she was not asking to testify, but she was willing to testify if the senators called her.

BIDEN: "I believe (her testimony) could have (changed the course of history). Now others believed that she would hurt Anita Hill.

OGLETREE: We were concerned about anything that would hurt Anita Hill. But Anita Hill was not going to be hurt by Angela Wright. Congress' job would have been more complicated --they would have to beat up on a second black woman in the course of 48 hours, and that is something they had to weigh.....

I thought her willingness to come forward was commendable, but their treatment of her was despicable and unforgivable. And I think that literally she would have changed the course of history....

BIDEN: I was told (Angela Wright) wanted the subpoena lifted and that people who were strong Anita Hill people wanted the subpoena lifted. They believed that Anita Hill's testimony was so strong standing on its own that no matter how good anyone else was, it would be diluted. It would take away from it.

OGLETREE: If Biden in implying that Hill's team opposed Angela Wright's testimony, that is absolutely, unequivocally, categorically, and positively false. And that is the greatest creative use of fact and fiction that I have heard from these hearings. There is no one associated with the Anita Hill team who will tell you or can tell you that we opposed Angela Wright's testimony....We desperately wanted Angela Wright to testify because she was the one additional witness who was both willing and able to come forward and state that on another occasion Justice Thomas had engaged in conduct that was tantamount to sexual harassment....

And we think that would have taken this thing over the top. It is absolutely absurd for Sen. Biden or anyone else to suggest that anyone associated with Anita Hill prevented Angela Wright from testifying. We wanted her to testify, and we wish she had testified. And we thought the whole deal that both sides of the Congress made to allow her testimony to be submitted in the middle of the night without examination is shameful and reflected poorly on the entire process.

(Her information) was not extraneous. This was solid, concrete testimony, corroborated by another person, that was highly relevant. It's hard for anyone to have suggested that it wasn't relevant.

Sen. Joe Biden (D-Del.)

Photo courtesy of AP Wide World Photos

WHY WASN'T A PANEL OF SEXUAL HARASSMENT EXPERTS CALLED?

BIDEN: 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.

OGLETREE: "It's absurd to say that he supported that. He has just recreated history....Not only did we suggest (such expert testimony), but we had Louise Fitzgerald (University of Illinois professor and expert on sexual harassment) physically in Washington...prepared to testify. We told not just Sen. Biden's staff, but several staff members that weekend, that she was not only anxious and willing, but very capable of discussing these issues.

Expert testimony can only help explain why a woman would come forward a decade later to bring in allegations of sexual harassment. So with all due respect, Sen. Biden completely has it wrong. And I think this is as self-serving as the earlier representations about why they didn't take Professor Hill's early allegations very seriously and treat them in a more public manner than they did when they were first aware of her concerns....

Whether Biden made the decision in a vacuum or after consulting with the members of both parties or just the Democrats, there was a determination made that no expert would be called, and we were sorely disappointed.

WHY DIDN'T SEN. BIDEN DEFEND ANITA HILL MORE AGGRESSIVELY?

BIDEN: 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.

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.

OGLETREE: (Senator Biden) doesn't understand that by sitting back and taking no position that he has encouraged the victimization of Anita Hill. She has civil rights and civil liberties, too. She wasn't applying for a lifetime appointment on the Supreme Court. She was not coming forward with an agenda to change the landscape of America.

And so for him to say that he didn't help her because he didn't want to be like the other side, to me, is to acknowledge that he has neglected to do his duties. He was the chairman. He was supposed to ask tough questions. He was supposed to get to the bottom of issues....And the bottom line is that Anita Hill was pilloried from beginning to end without any protection from anybody in that process....

What the senator did regrettably was to bend over in the wrong direction, and I think he did a great disservice in the sense of civil rights by being so tolerant of the lack of responsiveness on the part of one party and being so intolerant of efforts on the other side to bring out issues that may have shed light on (Thomas' character).

WHY DIDN'T ANITA HILL TESTIFY A SECOND TIME?

BIDEN: I also wanted Anita Hill to come back and gave (her) that opportunity. But again, I'm not criticizing. I could just as well have been wrong.

OGLETREE: In fact, Anita Hill was not only prepared but willing and interested in testifying a second time and had a wonderful rebuttal statement -- just brilliant rebuttal statement that I hope she, at some point, will share with the public. But given the Alan Simpson claim that what he intended to do was start talking about pubic hairs or whether she had roommates with men or women and whether she was liberal or conservative or whether she had traffic tickets or was a good or bad teacher....These were things we felt went far beyond the pale and went not to character assessment but character assassination.

And it was my judgment, over the objection of some of the other lawyers, that Anita Hill was not going to be subjected to more abuse. She was not going to go through it unless we had the power to object to lines of questioning. And that was not the power given to us.

WHAT WAS THE SIGNIFICANCE OF THOMAS PLAYING THE "RACE CARD"?

BIDEN: 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.

OGLETREE: I think Judge Thomas' use of the term `high tech lynching of an uppity black' was brilliant and decisive. It was very effective rhetoric, and it allowed him to, in a sense, distance himself from his handlers in the White House and to give his own personal sense, as a black man, that he felt abused. He also turned the race card in a way that completely emasculated people like Sen. (Ted) Kennedy and Sen. (Patrick) Leahy and others who felt very uncomfortable challenging a black man on questions of sexuality....

And in a sense, the fact that this group was all white and all male made it a very easy attack and made their defense impossible. But Biden shouldn't blame Thomas. He should blame himself for not having the courage to look beyond that attack and going forward and probing in these very relevant issues to find a resolution to one of the most perplexing issues to confront our country in the last century.

IS THOMAS ON THE COURT ONLY BECAUSE HE IS BLACK?

BIDEN: "I think that the only reason Clarence Thomas is on the Court is because he is black. I don't believe he could have won had he been white. And the reason is, I think it was a cynical ploy by President Bush."

OGLETREE: Biden's partly right. It was not a cynical ploy by Bush. It was a brilliant ploy by Bush, and I give him credit for it. It was perhaps the single most important decision that George Bush made as president. What he was able to do by nominating Clarence Thomas was to drive a wedge in the civil rights community that separated brother and sister, mother and father in ways that have never happened before.

Because what he said was, `Here is a black man. Now let me see you criticize him. Are you criticizing him because he is black? Are you criticizing him because he is conservative? Are you criticizing him because you don't think he is competent? Whatever reason you're criticizing him, it's no loss for the president, because I will have ample reason to say, `I'll never nominate (a black) again. I will never put anyone through what he went through.'

So it was a brilliant move on the part of the president. And what he did was show the very soft underbelly in the liberal community that could not tolerate a challenge that really tested the essence of racial politics....

I think that what Bush did was not cynical, but it was from my point of view, and other agree with this, a confirmation that Republicans strongly believe in affirmative action. Justice Thomas was the affirmative action candidate. He was not the best person for the job. He was not the best African American for the job. He was not a brilliant judge...

So I think that the real significance of all this is that the president was able to get what he wanted. He was able to drive a wedge in the civil rights community, and now those, particularly civil rights leaders who were reluctant to oppose Thomas, regret that they didn't because he's turned out to be far more conservative than they ever imagined.

@1994 Florence Graves.

Florence Graves, the founding editor of Common Cause Magazine, is a research fellow at Harvard University's Institute of Politics and one of the reporters who broke the Sen. Bob Packwood sexual misconduct story in The Washington Post.

1 Dems will do the same thing with whoever McCain picks. This is old news, been going on for years.
2 The plagiarism issue (as far as I know SINGULAR issue) so what? Rush preaches to the choir, very small negative if any at all.
3 Where have you been for the last 40 yrs? Neither party worries that much about this anymore.
4 Biden doesn't support it anymore. Again, they will attack him on this and it will be a somewhat larger issue than the plagiarism non-issue.
5 Well I don't want to make an excuse for his vote or support of credit card companies, but the guy is from Delaware, what else can I say? If anything the donations will be higher now with a known name like Biden.
6 Haven't we all. I have heard this BS on the MSM, but I can not think of anything that was bad at all he said.
7 OK. Well you are entitled to your opinion. Biden is slightly left of center and will help with the "working" people.
8 I think Biden will not run in the case of Obama winning 2 terms, my opinion.
9 Clark no, for a number of reasons I won't go into since I am getting of typing already. I like Clark but I just didn't think it would have been a good fit. Richardson yeah ok, Brown, too liberal and only a single term Senator so far (I really like brown). Kaine, basically unknown to the the nation. Sebelius, the Clinton people would really been pissed off over that one.


Politically it makes huge sense. Shit, if it were up to me, I would like to have seen Kucinich, but that would have been POLITICAL suicide.

1) The Repugnants can run commercials showing Biden attacking Obama when both were candidates for the Democratic Nominee, and use anti-Obama quotes that Biden likely said;

They've already done that, about 8:30 AM today - it went over like a lead balloon! Let's see the Obama ads next weekend quoting Mitt Romney attacking McCain. It's all part of politics and campaigns.

2) Biden has past plagiarism issues (though I concede these were some time ago, still, Rush & Co. will bring them up)

McCain (Solzhenitsyn) and his wife (Betty Crocker) have done worse and much more recently. Biden's "plagiarism" has been debunked thousands of times over the last 20 years.

3) Biden does nothing to help win any toss-up state (Recall how LBJ secured the victory for JFK by putting Texas in the Dem column?)

Pennsylvania? Virginia? Maybe even New Jersey?

4) Biden voted for the Iraq war, and now how is Obama going to attack McCain for doing the same?

Biden, almost within weeks of the vote, explained WHY he voted for "Joint Resolution to Authorize the Use of United States Armed Forces Against Iraq" (which, if anyone actually reads it, was NOT "for war") and under which conditions, which were not followed, we should go to war. He was NOT in favor of bush invading Iraq in 2003.

I hope during this campaign the issue of the resolution becomes a factor, and that people actually read it. Here's a link:

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/10/2002100...

5) Biden pisses off the base by voting for the credit card companies, campaign donations will now not be as high as they could have been

A minor issue compared to his correct positions and votes on all the other issues.

6) Biden has said some strange things at points

Like "I'll check with my staff to see how many houses I own", or maybe singing "bomb bomb Iran", or "I don't know what kind of car I drive"? "We'll be greeted as liberators"? "Mission Accomplished"? Many more.....

7) Biden doesn't seem to me to be a messenger for *change*

Whoaaaa, you were going to "elaborate", not pontificate with things like "doesn't seem to me"!

8) Now let me state that I AM DEFINITELY NOT ageist, but understand that some in the country may well be. And will Biden himself without a doubt feel like running for president after 2 Obama terms at the age of 73?

So, he's not a good choice for VP NOW because he'll be 73 IF he decides to run for President in eight years? Hillary Clinton is only 4 years younger, Sebelius less than 5 years younger - what's the age cutoff for candidates for vice president in case they want to run for president 8 years later?

9) There were better candidates available. Clark especially, but also Richardson (who I don't think really attacked Obama much while a candidate), Senator Brown of Ohio, Sebelius, Kaine, etc.

Richardson would have ideologically been a great choice, but even in this day and age two minorities on the same ticket would fail. The others? Where did Senator Brown come from? Sebelius, Kaine, etc. were much less well known nationally and have much less experience in international affairs than Biden.

Biden gave us the Drug Czar's office and the Rave Act. Oh and he's on the Narcotics Control Committee.

Hillary Clinton would have been horrible choices. But this one is the right choice, and Obama's showing some depth and substance and intelligence in making it.

Still will vote for him, but about the worst choice I can imagine. The repukes are already starting to roll out his various gaffes from over the years.

Also, being in the Senate since age 30...

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/7578136.stm

...Biden better be ready.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

who cares what the "Freeptards" say or do? They've shown themselves to be the knuckledraggers that they are. Do we want their opinion to matter? Because it doesn't. If we want to take our country back to the greatness it once had, we need to ignore people like the freepers.

McCain has already pointed out that Biden commented last year that Obama was not ready to be president. That of course will become a major story for a day or two. And then be forgotten. Maybe the solution is to change the rules. Thems that has the most votes is the presidential nominee. Thems that has the second most votes is the vice-presidential nominee. Reality is, even though personally I cannot stand her, only Clinton could guarantee massive voter turnout which is what it will take to beat McCain. And anyone who thinks otherwise needs to go back and look at the numbers. Should prove interesting to see what happens in Denver. A woman scorned and all. Not once but twice.

I would never have voted for her for president. But I would have supported her as the vice-presidential nominee. Only because it would result in massive voter turnout among Democrats. But by the same token I suspect McCain will become so scary by November that I would have voted for her.

...and it's looking at this point we'll be needing all the states we can get.

It is true, though, that the McCain campaign could have run that video where stupid Hillary actually compared McCain favorably to Obama regarding experience (stunning and appalling that she did that), and that would have been unpleasant. However, I'm sure that Biden has said some unflattering things about Obama.

Why, oh why, wasn't General Clark chosen? Or Kaine, who may have guaranteed victory in Virginia? Or Richardson? Or Sebelius?

Biden was the man who single handedly took Rudy Guiliani out of the game. He'll do the same with John McCain and any of the 527 smearsters that come along.

Biden's a classic tough guy only working for the good team this time. Sure we've got problems with his votes on credit card companies. I've always had a problem with his constant support for bad drug laws. "War On Drugs" B/S that is.

But he's the toughest candidate the Dems have had going for them in a long long time. You'll have Joe Biden to thank when on his and Obama's coatails Congress gets a rock solid Democratic majority after the fall elections.

And that will spell the permanent death of the GOP. The Republican party to fall by the wayside of the KKK, Neo nazis and other similar goofy idiots with failed ideology.

You mean that Iowa caucus that Ghouliani never even showed up for, that Biden dropped out of the next day?

I have to say, I'm disappointed. A Presidential candidate should be thinking about the future, in other words, who can take over my legacy after my eight years are up? Do we really expect that Biden will run for his own two terms in 2016, at the age of 73?

And why not tap someone young and exciting to be the future of the Democratic Party, someone who will serve as a leader for years to come, not someone who generated zero enthusiasm in his last run for the Presidency?

This feels like Lloyd Bentsen all over again.

But there wasn't much of a pool to pick from for Obama.

That's the saddest thing I've heard anybody say about our Party.

I respectfully disagree.

Elections are not all about just today.

Not unless he gets cold feet and turns timid. Very unlikely for Biden. He will win votes the old fashioned way: By cutting the opponent to shreads.

We'll have Obama for eight years BUT only if we win it first. Joe Biden is the best choice to help the ticket. Not some younger person unfamiliar with the hardball game of presidential politics.

I'm always surprised at the naive thoughts running through the typical Democratic Party rank and file. You need a pitbull to take down a bull. Biden is that dog.

He's a "three for the price of one" VP candidate.

Also McCains plagiarism of Wikipedia.

with appropriate credit given . . . many times . . . it was this particular time when
the quotes and attribution wasn't given . . .

that's over ---

unless it becomes the "Gore invented the internet" thingy --

Republicans would attack any Democratic candidate for both Pres and VP for anything. Everyone's already ready. There's nothing fundamentally different about this tact.

Anyways, they themselves should be prepared to answer to charges of plagiarism themselves should they feel so inclined to bring it up.

Get tough with N. Korea, Iran, Sudan, Burma, China, Cuba, ... Pakistan, ...;

Develop relationships in Africa, ...

Vice President Joe Biden shuts the door on the inexperienced tag.

I wonder what the knuckle draggers will come up with next?

Good choice Barack! Your calm steady hand is becoming more and more apparent.

This is like having Leahy on the ticket, in many ways.
The Corrupt Bastards better start packing for another planet!

Yeah, like a busload of toddlers balanced on a cliff.....

This decision was a stinker.

Obama has the ideas and the charisma and Biden has the experience and the Gravitas.

What's not balanced about that?

They should have sent out the text the minute BEFORE the first secret service agent appeared on Biden's doorstep. The MSM may be (mostly) stupid but even a idiot could put 2-and-2 together once the first dark suited guy with shades showed.

at like 2AM EST

It was, however, in my inbox.

anything on my email or cell phone yet and it's already been announced in the media. So much for signing up to be the "first to know."