Voicemail for Anita Hill from Clarence Thomas’s wife: You ready to apologize yet?

posted at 6:26 pm on October 20, 2010 by Allahpundit

I’ve been thinking about this since last night and can’t make up my mind. Was it an earnest attempt to find reconciliation? Or was it Virginia Thomas’s way of dropping a “Just a reminder: You’re a liar” candygram in Hill’s inbox?

Either way, ringing up old enemies out of the blue decades after the fact to ask if they’re ready to apologize is a mighty creative way of handling a grudge.

A few days ago, Brandeis University professor Anita Hill received a message on her voice mail at work.

“Good morning, Anita Hill, it’s Ginny Thomas,” said the voice. “I just wanted to reach across the airwaves and the years and ask you to consider something. I would love you to consider an apology sometime and some full explanation of why you did what you did with my husband. So give it some thought and certainly pray about this and come to understand why you did what you did. OK, have a good day.”…

Hill told ABC News: “Even if it wasn’t a prank, it was in no way conciliatory for her to begin with the presumption that I did something wrong in 1991. I simply testified to the truth of my experience. For her to say otherwise is not extending an olive branch, it’s accusatory.”

She continued: “I don’t apologize. I have no intention of apologizing, and I stand by my testimony in 1991.”

She ended up reporting the call to campus police, thinking it could only be a prank, and asked that they, er, send it along to the FBI. (Why?) Actually, my main curiosity here has to do with the timing: According to Jonathan Capehart, it came at 7:30 a.m. on a Saturday morning. When I first heard about it, I thought it might have to do with the anniversary of Thomas’s hearings and Hill’s testimony (which took place in mid-October of 1991), but the timing here makes it sound less planned and more spontaneous. Like, sitting there at breakfast and suddenly thinking, “You know who I feel like calling? Anita Hill.” Any theories?


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2 3

hawkdriver on October 20, 2010 at 9:16 PM

Maybe, it really was an odd mess and the complaints pretty trifling.

Cindy Munford on October 20, 2010 at 9:50 PM

Lest anyone forget, the entire affair was catalyzed by NPR’s Nina Totenberg, whose visceral shock at the final confirmation vote was unmistakable even mediated through the radio. Her very first remark was to hope that the new Justice Thomas would recuse himself from any cases involving parties who had testified against his confirmation during the hearings.

Nina continues to cover the high court. Her personal activism has gone underground, for the most part, but I’m convinced she’s retaining her position as court reporter principally in case she can personally make a difference one day to turn the court more liberal.

Hilariously, even Ronald Reagan did a better job of that than the liberal Ms. Totenberg. How’s that feel, Nina? ;-)

rasqual on October 20, 2010 at 9:50 PM

It’s not Anita Hill demanding the truth. It’s Clarence’s inquisitive wife. If she’s so dogged about pursuing the truth, I’m simply pointing out one way that she can get it and finally put this behind her.

bayam on October 20, 2010 at 8:29 PM

Comprehension fail.

As others have pointed out, it’s slightly off-balanced behavior to begin with. Secondly, if she has no doubts in her mind that Thomas is a man of honor, then why bother to keep pursuing it? It doesn’t add up.

bayam on October 20, 2010 at 8:32 PM

And confirmed. It should be obvious that she left the messsage because she had no doubt that her husband was innocent and that Hill was lying. So she “offered her an olive branch” — an offer of peace — conditioned only on Hill coming clean about her lies.

Why would she make such an offer if she doubted her husband? In such a case, the last thing she would want to do is investigate and find out the ugly truth.

I have no idea why she would do this now, but it’s obvious that she believes her husband was lied about and wants his accuser to retract the charges.

didymus on October 20, 2010 at 10:14 PM

That woman, Anita Hill, and the democrats literally attempted a new age lynching of her husband in front of the world. She has a right to be bitter. She’ll never get an apology, though, because Anita would be admitting she lied under oath.

Mrs. Thomas can take comfort in knowing that EVERY SANE PERSON knows Anita Hill is a liar.

SouthernGent on October 20, 2010 at 10:25 PM

…I’ve been wondering whether there isn’t some sort of backstory here…

Infidoll on October 20, 2010 at 6:41 PM

That’s what I think. Something happened or she heard something that made her think this was the thing to do.

INC on October 20, 2010 at 10:29 PM

Interesting that she said “why you did what you did with my husband” and not “to my husband”. Symantics?

CVMA-Dredd on October 20, 2010 at 10:30 PM

My theory is secret lesbian love triangle.

You see, it was really Virginia Thomas’ pubic hair on the Coke… and Anita Hill knew it all along.

TallDave on October 20, 2010 at 10:53 PM

There are a few basic rules of courtesy when it comes to apologies. First amongst these is that it is never proper to ask for an apology on behalf of or for someone else – you are neither in a position to expect it nor to accept it.

Secondly is that you don’t do it via letter, email, txt msg, tweet or voice mail when the matter is grave. You ask for a private face to face or, at the very least, an off hours personal call – even if you believe you are legitimately due one.

Lastly, when you meet you explain your side and then give the person an opportunity to be a better human and offer up the apology themselves before you ask it of them.

None of this is to say that what she did is wrong – just that she went about it in the wrong way if she actually wanted to extend an olive branch.

dieudonne on October 20, 2010 at 11:09 PM

I actually think it’s sweet that she did that. I don’t see what’s odd about it at all (other than it getting into the news). Who knows what triggered the call after so many years, but if my husband were lied about, I wouldn’t see any problem in contacting the liar directly.

LASue on October 20, 2010 at 7:12 PM

Exactly. Plus it is scriptural (Matt 18:15).

The odd part is Hill’s reaction. Call in the FBI!

onthego on October 20, 2010 at 11:14 PM

Why doesn’t Anita Hill just tell the damn truth?

HornetSting on October 20, 2010 at 8:00 PM

Do you have a link or sourcing on some credible evidence that she didn’t tell the “damn truth”? Like MadCon posted upthread, it’s a classic he said, she said situation. BTW, Hill passed a lie detector test on this stuff. Acting like you know what really happened between Hill and Thomas when you can’t possibly have any earthly idea just makes you look foolish.

dakine on October 20, 2010 at 11:20 PM

Had me scratching my head too, Allah.
What was she thinking?
So,
1. a spontaneous and unplanned act, within the context of an extended, unresolved trauma
2. emotional and impulsive
3. a cry for help/closure
4. triggered by some significant event or change

The water is dark and deep.
Randy

williars on October 20, 2010 at 11:27 PM

When one woman attacks another woman’s husband, it doesn’t matter if the wife is a kind saint who wouldn’t hurt a fly- the claws are going to come out.

It’s just not the kind of thing that a woman ever forgets, or forgives.

I could easily see my mother doing the same thing as Mrs Thomas if she was in her shoes.

It’s not particularly rational from my perspective. But it’s one of those woman things that I just stay the heck away from.

Sackett on October 20, 2010 at 11:29 PM

Theory:

I smell Nina Totenberg somewhere on this. Mrs. Thomas called Anita on Saturday morning. Where were the Thomases on Friday night? Could a “little birdie” told Mrs. Thomas that Anita Hill said she was sorry for her testimony or that she had admitted to making the whole thing up?

Was Mrs Thomas basically set up for this?

And if Hill thought it was just a “prank”, why did she request it go to the FBI on the first occurrence? And is it the practice of the FBI to leak such items to the press?

It has the stench of Totenberg all over this, in my opinion. Either that or Mrs. Thomas has gone completely batty. Nina has made a career out of Clarence Thomas and maybe she needed a little publicity boost.

crosspatch on October 20, 2010 at 11:38 PM

dieudonne on October 20, 2010 at 11:09 PM

You didn’t have a girlfriend in high school did you…

right2bright on October 21, 2010 at 12:11 AM

Acting like you know what really happened between Hill and Thomas when you can’t possibly have any earthly idea just makes you look foolish.

dakine on October 20, 2010 at 11:20 PM

…or the guy has a real strong opinion…and that doesn’t make him look foolish.

right2bright on October 21, 2010 at 12:13 AM

It has the stench of Totenberg all over this, in my opinion. Either that or Mrs. Thomas has gone completely batty. Nina has made a career out of Clarence Thomas and maybe she needed a little publicity boost.

crosspatch on October 20, 2010 at 11:38 PM

Possibly; Totenberg is a snake.

slickwillie2001 on October 21, 2010 at 12:17 AM

Do you have a link or sourcing on some credible evidence that she didn’t tell the “damn truth”? Like MadCon posted upthread, it’s a classic he said, she said situation. BTW, Hill passed a lie detector test on this stuff. Acting like you know what really happened between Hill and Thomas when you can’t possibly have any earthly idea just makes you look foolish.

dakine on October 20, 2010 at 11:20 PM

We definitely need to start any discussion/debate about this subject with the admission that we might never know exactly what happened.

That said, the question then becomes is what Hill claimed [i]plausible[/i] and/or [i]credible[/i]?

Obviously at this point views will differ, but I believe that what she claimed and how it all came out makes the whole story implausible and non-credible.

- one of her stories is a plagiarism of a scene in “The Exorcist”

- There hasn’t been any other woman who has worked for Thomas who has claimed sexual harassment

- Hill never said anything about being harassed until Thomas was picked for the SCOTUS. And let us remember that the libs did and still very much hate the man.

- Hill was so “affected” by his actions that she continued to work for him for some time.

IMHO, the whole scene seemed to be very obviously a carefully orchestrated smear job by libs and democrats in order to prevent Thomas from being appointed.

Religious_Zealot on October 21, 2010 at 12:21 AM

Women are crazy.

krabbas on October 21, 2010 at 12:37 AM

“Hill never said anything about being harassed until Thomas was picked for the SCOTUS. And let us remember that the libs did and still very much hate the man.”

Hill didn’t even come forward when he was nominated. Nina Totenberg at NPR started working the phones calling everyone that had ever worked with Thomas begging and cajoling them to give her some dirt on him. I believe it came out that Totenberg had to “work on” Hill for quite a while to get her to “come forward”.

crosspatch on October 21, 2010 at 12:48 AM

Why would Anita Hill EVER willingly admit that she perjured herself in sworn testimony before Congress?

Mrs. Thomas, what were you thinking? Leave it at the silent treatment unless you have material evidence that Anita lied under oath.

maverick muse on October 21, 2010 at 7:08 AM

Virginia Thomas has succeeded in pushing Anita Hill back into the news by leaving a voice mail that wasn’t conciliatory and had a awfully low probability of success.

Clarence Thomas now has nearly 20 years at SCOTUS, and has plenty of avenues to define his legacy. Rebooting the 1991 hearings for cable news and the blogosphere isn’t one of them.

If they wanted to extend an olive branch there must be dozens of intermediaries who know both parties well enough to handle the diplomacy. Voice mail isn’t the way to handle it.

dedalus on October 21, 2010 at 7:15 AM

Was Mrs Thomas basically set up for this?

Mrs. Hill exposed what can be interpreted as her own insecurity.

Mrs. Thomas obviously did not consult her husband before calling Anita Hill. To EVER leave a voice mail is hazardous regarding a scandal. That looks pathetic, as if Mrs. Thomas just can’t get past Anita Hill’s well reimbursed character assassination. Anita Hill got her career out of the deal she made, despite the fact that she failed to bring down Justice Thomas. There is no sense in feeding Ms. troll Hill with anything at all, resurrecting her after being 86′d from the Thomas household. It appears that Mrs. Thomas needs a better girlfriend to talk woman to woman, since she thought she knew better than her husband how to deal with Ms. Hill today. Likely, Mrs. Thomas doesn’t follow news on the internet, or she’d have realized long ago to ignore and forget about slimy Ms. Hill and steer clear of making waves. Mrs. Thomas is a great woman who can learn to allow the burden of corruption to rest squarely on Ms. Hill without any personal attempt to save Ms. Hill from eternal damnation for bearing false witness. Get over it.

maverick muse on October 21, 2010 at 7:29 AM

Mrs. Hill THOMAS exposed

maverick muse on October 21, 2010 at 7:30 AM

Mrs. Thomas learned a valuable lesson (hopefully) in that you just don’t assume any decency in todays Democrat left. Seriously, Mrs. Thomas, this is a group of women that will overlook rape, if the man is a good sugar daddy and pays for the abortion. Do you really think you’re going to get an apology from that kind of trash?

Besides, Clarence is Black. Bill Clinton is White. Different standards. That’s all you need to know dealing with the NOW crowd.

MNHawk on October 21, 2010 at 8:37 AM

No theories here. This just confirms the saying, “Being Liberal means never having to say you’re sorry.”

olesparkie on October 21, 2010 at 8:51 AM

Mrs. Thomas is a great woman who can learn to allow the burden of corruption to rest squarely on Ms. Hill without any personal attempt to save Ms. Hill from eternal damnation for bearing false witness. Get over it.

maverick muse on October 21, 2010 at 7:29 AM

Great? That seems a stretch based on her career so far. She fumbled this outreach and prompted a new generation of comedians to produce viral comedy videos about something her husband’s career had helped to bury in the past.

Clarence Thomas should be pizzed off at his wife for picking a fight that he doesn’t need and can’t benefit from.

dedalus on October 21, 2010 at 8:57 AM

Folks. Please.

Has anyone verified that this has NOT made up out of whole cloth by Anita Hill?

Because until then, I’m not believing Justice Hill’s wife actually did this.

I mean, because of all the KKK signs put up by blacks and stuff.

moochy on October 21, 2010 at 9:25 AM

First of all, apologies are for accidents.
Second, an apology is meaningless if you have to ask for it – if a person is REALLY sorry they will say so without you asking/telling them to.

LODGE4 on October 21, 2010 at 9:27 AM

One of the problems of following a news story in this modern age of information is that bits of the story come out (almost) instantaneously…

…but the WHOLE story usually takes a little time to come out.

I’ve seen so many stories change and evolve as time went on and more information has been made public.

Many here seem to be assuming that Mrs. Thomas basically “cold called” Ms. Hill.

While that may be exactly what happened, IMHO the story sounds incomplete.

I would not be surprised if, in the days to come, more of the story comes out and we learn that there was something(s) that preceded the call.

And maybe we can also learn WHY Ms. Hill felt the need to:
a) alert the FBI; and
b) alert the media

IMHO, these last two points are just as interesting and just as troubling as Mrs. Thomas “cold calling” her.

Religious_Zealot on October 21, 2010 at 9:33 AM

Religious_Zealot on October 21, 2010 at 9:33 AM

Quite logical, and a good way of looking at the topic. I share your interest in Item A and B, for sure.

Vastly curious what might precipitate such a panicked reaction. >.> Of course, liberals hate being called to the carpet, so it may well just have been a knee-jerk reaction to being called out.

Kind of like when a cockroach is exposed to sunlight, after hiding under a rock.

KinleyArdal on October 21, 2010 at 9:56 AM

Perhaps Mz. Hill had just watched a particularly scary thriller the night before she received the call. <.<?

KinleyArdal on October 21, 2010 at 9:57 AM

dedalus on October 21, 2010 at 8:57 AM

Context and meaning. Read and weep.

Mrs. Thomas blundered. Period. That does not reflect on Mrs. Thomas’ character as a lady who has endured every bit as much public humiliation at the hands of our government as, for instance, Palin’s children endured during her VP campaign at the hands of the bloodthirsty media.

The point is that Anita Hill DOES owe Justice and Mrs. Thomas a complete apology, but that has no bearing on what will be.

As I wrote initially, Hill will NEVER rescind her sworn testimony, admitting her perjury. And it was foolish of Mrs. Thomas to call Hill, let alone leave any voicemail for Hill to publicize. Hill’s characterization of “inappropriate” zings right back on her own uncomfortable ass.

maverick muse on October 21, 2010 at 10:10 AM

LODGE4 on October 21, 2010 at 9:27 AM

Yes, apologies are for accidents. And if a request need be made in order to attain an apology, the apology is likely insincere. However, when people realize they’ve made horrible mistakes that were intentional deeds, and feel remorse for their bad behavior, apologies are in order.

maverick muse on October 21, 2010 at 10:13 AM

I have a theory. I think Ms. Thomas wants the truth and maybe it finally dawned on her that her husband just might have lied. I mean, women, especially successful, educated women like Ms. Hill, don’t go around making unfounded accusations against supreme court judges without some kind of evidence. Certainly Ms. Thomas knew that bringing this up was going to invite a media frenzy, so her motives are questionable.

scalleywag on October 21, 2010 at 10:35 AM

Has anyone verified that this has NOT made up out of whole cloth by Anita Hill?

Because until then, I’m not believing Justice Hill’s wife actually did this.

moochy on October 21, 2010 at 9:25 AM

Um…did you even read the article? Oh, of course not. If you had, you would know that Virginia Thomas made a statement where she admitted to making the call.

MadisonConservative on October 21, 2010 at 10:39 AM

As I wrote initially, Hill will NEVER rescind her sworn testimony, admitting her perjury. And it was foolish of Mrs. Thomas to call Hill, let alone leave any voicemail for Hill to publicize. Hill’s characterization of “inappropriate” zings right back on her own uncomfortable ass.

maverick muse on October 21, 2010 at 10:10 AM

I don’t know either woman or where the truth lies in the “he said/she said” fight from 20 years ago.

I feel bad for Clarence Thomas if he didn’t know about the call. If my wife needlessly instigated something that created professional problems for me, I’d be pretty ticked right now.

dedalus on October 21, 2010 at 10:43 AM

Well – it was a dumb and naive move. Anita Hill has ridden the victimization horse all the way to a cushy job in academia. Even if she did lie and feels remorse about lying (doubtful), she couldn’t possibly let go of the one event in her life that catapulted her into the approved liberal noble victim camp. How do you think those faculty mixers at Brandeis would go if she caved to that AWFUL woman.

But…in one sense…I have sympathy for Ginny. What a world we live in! What can’t they have a conversation like two adults and be done with it? Why does Anita have to call security? That offends me more than what Ginny did. But I guess when you are a pampered, delicate little ol flower of academia, then you get the vapors when someone wants to have an honest conversation.

johnboy on October 21, 2010 at 10:51 AM

Mrs. Thomas blundered. Period.

I think such an absolute statement needs a caveat -

Mrs. Thomas blundered IF there was nothing that (immediately) preceded or prompted the call.

Again, if this was a “cold call”, then I tend to agree with your assessment (except that I would point out that it really isn’t all that big of a deal).

I still think more will be revealed in the coming days.

And let us not let Ms. Hill “off the hook” for taking the call to the FBI and the media.

Religious_Zealot on October 21, 2010 at 10:51 AM

scalleywag on October 21, 2010 at 10:35 AM

It’s incorrect and unwise to think that wealth, fame or education has anything to do with committing (or NOT committing) a crime.

A good example of a fairly successful PhD who let her anger and hate destroy her is Deb Frisch (google her).

Religious_Zealot on October 21, 2010 at 10:54 AM

Anita had attempted to Facebook friend Clarence Thomas.

sleepy-beans on October 21, 2010 at 10:56 AM

Religious_Zealot on October 21, 2010 at 10:54 AM

Well I will rephrase and say that for the most part successful educated women don’t conduct themselves in a manner like Ms. Hill did without there being some truth to her story. I didn’t say they never do, they just aren’t likely to, nor is it likely that successful educated men conduct themselves in an inappropriate manner in which Mr. Thomas was accused of.

I don’t think it’s appropriate to call someone’s comments “unwise” either.

scalleywag on October 21, 2010 at 11:25 AM

I don’t think it’s appropriate to call someone’s comments “unwise” either.

scalleywag on October 21, 2010 at 11:25 AM

It’s entirely appropriate.

Especially when the post is displaying prejudices that simply don’t connect with reality.

I get a little tired of the elitism shown in thinking that just because a person is successful, wealthy and/or educated that they are then almost INCAPABLE of being greedy, vindictive, power hungry, etc. etc.

The unsaid implication, of course, is that THAT type of stuff is relegated to the poor & dumb (uneducated).

This is complete, total and absolute BS.

The list is incredibly long of successful, wealthy and/or well educated people who have lied, cheated, manipulated, even MURDERED to get ahead or simply because they thought they could.

If you want a prime example of someone very successful, fairly wealthy and well educated who has lied, cheated and manipulated their way to the “top”, look no further than our current president.

So let’s can it with the “successful educated women don’t conduct themselves in that manner” because history shows not only that they CAN, not only that they WILL, but also that they HAVE.

Religious_Zealot on October 21, 2010 at 11:50 AM

Virginia Thomas has succeeded in pushing Anita Hill back into the news by leaving a voice mail that wasn’t conciliatory and had a awfully low probability of success.

dedalus on October 21, 2010 at 7:15 AM

That’s just it though, this only could have benefited Anita Hill, and Mrs. Thomas must have been smart enough to realize that when she called. So I don’t at all get what she was thinking unless she’s been placed on some anti-depressants lately.

Esthier on October 21, 2010 at 12:06 PM

I’m late to this thread, so I don’t know if it has been mentioned, but….

When at least ABC Good Morning was reporting this, they used the video clip of Clarence Thomas saying his famous “this is a high tech lynching” line with a quick cut to Biden as chair of the judicial committee. That has to be priceless.

Someone was a “magnificent bastard” to think this up.

AverageJoe on October 21, 2010 at 12:22 PM

Mrs. Thomas blundered IF there was nothing that (immediately) preceded or prompted the call.

Religious_Zealot on October 21, 2010 at 10:51 AM

Even if there was, short of absolute proof that Hill was lying (maybe even a recording of her telling a mutual friend), this was still a big and unnecessary blunder on her part. I really can’t understand what she was expecting.

Esthier on October 21, 2010 at 12:27 PM

You didn’t have a girlfriend in high school did you…

right2bright on October 21, 2010 at 12:11 AM

I was in a minor seminary program and shopping monasteries for the best fit – so that would be a big negative.

That being said – I’ve had relationships since then and, yes, that’s how I interact with them when things go wrong. These relationships may not last forever but they usually end well and I have had more than a few “I’m sorry” calls a few months after.

dieudonne on October 21, 2010 at 1:09 PM

So let’s can it with the “successful educated women don’t conduct themselves in that manner” because history shows not only that they CAN, not only that they WILL, but also that they HAVE.

Religious_Zealot on October 21, 2010 at 11:50 AM

My my, you’ve totally blown my comment out of proportion, haven’t you. Did you not catch the for the most part insertion in my statement? And nowhere did I use the word INCAPABLE. No worries, let’s just take a look at your sanctimonious rebuttal about Mr. President lying and manipulating his way into office. According to your logic you’re saying that’s the only way a black, educated, wealthy man can get elected president is to be a liar. In his case, it turned out to be true but that doesn’t mean there are a large majority of black men who lie and cheat their way to success. So climb down off your high horse there, Zealot. There’s more oxygen down here.

scalleywag on October 21, 2010 at 1:09 PM

Even if there was, short of absolute proof that Hill was lying (maybe even a recording of her telling a mutual friend), this was still a big and unnecessary blunder on her part. I really can’t understand what she was expecting.

Esthier on October 21, 2010 at 12:27 PM

I can conceive of several scenarios where it isn’t a blunder (including prior contacts initiated by Hill seeking forgiveness).

I’m simply pointing out the obvious – that unless/until we know what exactly (if anything) transpired beforehand that may have prompted the call…

…then maybe we should hold off a little bit on our absolute judgments.

And while we seem to be concentrating on Mrs. Thomas, let us not forget that Ms. Hill bizarrely forwarded the call to the FBI.

It’s not bizarre, though, that she forwarded it to the media. Although I don’t really think it helps her in her attempt to portray the aggrieved victim.

Lastly, even IF it’s a “cold call”, so what?

I mean, really. So what?

Are we feigning astonishment that after such a hate-fueled event (the confirmation hearings)…

…that there’s still hard feelings??!!

There certainly remains no love-lost from the liberals and the democrats toward Thomas who committed two liberal cardinal sins for an African-American male:
1) He’s conservative
2) He married a white woman.

The whole business has left an enduring stain on our culture and our government.

I’m not surprised at all that Mrs. Thomas is still pissed at Ms. Hill.

And I’m hard pressed to see what “damage” will result from this (will the libs hate Thomas even more??!!)

Religious_Zealot on October 21, 2010 at 2:12 PM

let’s just take a look at your sanctimonious rebuttal about Mr. President lying and manipulating his way into office. According to your logic you’re saying that’s the only way a black, educated, wealthy man can get elected president is to be a liar.

scalleywag on October 21, 2010 at 1:09 PM

Seems to me that for someone crying about not being understood…

…you’ve certainly gone pretty far in mangling my words.

And you should probably study more logic if you honestly believe that you can “logically” go from one example to some kind of bizarre, racist, absolute rule.

But it’s a pretty nice attempt at a strawman argument.

Keep up the good work!

Religious_Zealot on October 21, 2010 at 2:16 PM

Either way, ringing up old enemies out of the blue decades after the fact to ask if they’re ready to apologize is a mighty creative way of handling a grudge.

Well, I think that she should try harder to embrace religion and the lessons of Jesus. Holding onto grudges for many decades is truly pathetic and a serious character flaw.

bayam on October 21, 2010 at 2:50 PM

Sounds like a duel is in the making.

Polygraphs at dawn.

Be interesting who they both pick as seconds.

aritai on October 21, 2010 at 3:07 PM

Someone or something put a bee in lady Thomas’ bonnet.

I am enjoying this

The whole episode was well publicized. Kind of a replay of the excess publicity over the original event.

Hill is a lawyer. She reports item to campus police (end of secret) and requests they contact FBI. The deal with Hill seems to be no pubic hair left private

Hill hit the airwaves lickety split. Got to hurry before the election. We need some deja vu, quick

If nothing else stay away from Hill. She might pull off your wig in the ladies room. Which movie was that anyway?

entagor on October 21, 2010 at 3:14 PM

Sounds like a DNC / NPR prank on Hill to make

Justice Thomas and his wife look foolish.

I don’t buy any of it.

Texyank on October 21, 2010 at 3:25 PM

I don’t know… I hold grudges for a long time.

If it’s an injustice that been done to my husband, it is nearly impossible for me to ignore it and put it aside. But then someone told me Capricorns are the all time best at holding grudges. =)

The thing is, liberals still like to periodically throw up Anita Hill as a way of discrediting Thomas, and the fact that a Republican nominated him – the first black Supreme Court justice – to the bench. Dems want everyone to believe the fairy tale that they are the saviour of blacks whereas the GOP are detractors, impediments to blacks achieving their potential. So examples like Thomas, Powell, Rice, Watts, Williams, etc call that into question.

As a result it’s a wound that is occasionally picked open, and I bet Ginny just decided to call Hill and put it out there.

I should add that one of the people who really did a number on me – I quit my job over her treatment of me, she was all but forcing me out anyway – years later, unsolicited emailed me and said she was sorry she didn’t always treat me with the respect I deserved. However, I don’t think Hill will ever apologise though because they are all public figures and it would be too embarrassing.

linlithgow on October 21, 2010 at 4:21 PM

I think Justice Borg outta start calling up some Democrats and asking for some apologizes too.

Wow! The man was unabashedly crucified NOT over his jurisprudence but over this pathetic POS of a woman. We pretty much no she’s a liar. Someone who does this is more like Clinton. There’s a trail of them. Democrats take their own acts a paste them on their enemies. You all should understand this by now.

But what I find fascinating by the commentary is just how sickly intolerant and pious all this so called socially liberal RINO/Independent/Moderates are on here. It just rather… well… laughable. Here’s an idea: Why not hold up the mirror to your face and look at it for a bit.

Even if there was no background reason for Mrs. Thomas to call, which being who Anita Hill is I gather there’s definitely more than meets the eye and a world of context left out of the story, that A. Hill felt she needed to contact the media and FBI to address the matter… I mean, she was asked for an apology, past that the voicemail message was rather innocuous… People do stuff like this at various emotional moments in their lives all the time. And to act as if you’re so high and mighty that you’ve never called a person, even out of the blue, and left a voicemail that wasn’t taken as intended it rather ridiculous. No one is that seemly perfect. Neither are any of you. But you get to stand on your high perches; you socially tolerate liberals who want everyone the ability to say and do what they feel they want to because it’s their emotions afterall, and act as if you could have handled more tolerantly your significant other get bashed from one side of the head to the other verbally and PUBLICLY and just keep your trap shut and act as if nothing ever happened is a little hard to fathom.

I just know by some of the back and forth that goes on here, you all really are not the tolerant, or self contained, or unemotional when it comes to your thoughts and feelings and, yes, little irritants like Naruto Boy, etc. get under your skins far faster than how Mrs. Thomas is responded here for me to ever believe I should listen to this chastising in any serious light.

Sultry Beauty on October 21, 2010 at 4:22 PM

BTW–The only reason why there’s no data available to hoist you on your rearend of your own foibles is because, thank God, none of you are famous so no one really gives a cr@p that you called up your ex-girlfriend and made an a$$ out of yourselves. Seriously. HAH!

Sultry Beauty on October 21, 2010 at 4:27 PM

Sounds like a DNC / NPR prank on Hill to make

Justice Thomas and his wife look foolish.

I don’t buy any of it.

Texyank on October 21, 2010 at 3:25 PM

lol.

crr6 on October 21, 2010 at 4:47 PM

bayam on October 21, 2010 at 2:50 PM

You poor thing. Did you exert your reprobate mind whilst typing that out?

Inanemergencydial on October 21, 2010 at 4:51 PM

I don’t care what time of day it was…all I can say is when I do stuff like this I am either actively drinking or still buzzed. Which please don’t take that as a smear against Mrs. Thomas…I just can’t imagine making this kind of call under sober circumstances. Just doesn’t make sense.

WaltzingMtilda on October 21, 2010 at 8:49 PM

Something was bugging me this morning and I did a little research and realised I was wrong about Thomas being the first black justice – that was Thurgood Marshall. Thomas is the first black conservative justice. Apologies on that, I can’t believe I forgot about Marshall!

linlithgow on October 22, 2010 at 2:14 PM

Comment pages: 1 2 3