I am sure that Hill didn't make up the story. There are so many professionals, highly educated individuals who have harrased, and sexually abused women.I don't think it has anything to do with intelligence and where they come from.
These are people who have a mad side to them and they will ruin their careers sometimes and use their power just to have something that they don't: a woman.
You can have all the money in the world and power-without a woman, life is very empty.

Sent by Mitsos the Trelos | 2:29 PM ET | 10-03-2007

Another question to John Otten ....And here we go not only the racial debate, but the gender debate mixed in. The Clarence Thomas hearings had everything from affirmative action to pubic hairs. It was a classic supreme court confirmation far as reality television goes.

Okay, John. Here's my contention. In the upcoming elections, we the voters are going to be inundated with discussions about race and gender. Given that Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton are in the van of the Democrat's primary race.

I say that the overabundance of reports on race and gender issues will turn off the voters. These reports will have a backlash affect going against the Democrats.

Many Democrats will vote Republican.

And if so, which media outlets would be more prone to publish these kinds of stories. Is it more in the providence of right wing media, or left wing media, to potentially create a psychological result? One way or the other?

Or, is it all too horribly unavoidable and everyone will stay home on election day?

That's my contention.

How about yours, John? Or anyone else. I don't mean to discriminate. It just seems John is more willing to discuss issues with me.

fred call

Sent by fred call | 4:29 PM ET | 10-03-2007

My contention? Iraq will eclipse all other issues and the GOP loses on that. Unless Hillary does something incredibly stupid, which she probably won't because she's both a seasoned and smart politician, she'll be the next president and the first woman president. No doubt we'll hear a lot more about race and gender in the next year. And until the Dems pick a candidate it'll be divisive for them. But once Hillary gets the nomination then it'll be up to the GOP to keep the gender thing going and they could be seen as sexist if they do, which loses them a lot of women ballots. Right now the GOP faithful are trying everything they can to keep the focus on anything BUT Iraq. They're only kidding themselves. Some of the GOPs chickens came home from Iraq to roost in 2006. The rest will follow in 2008. That's my prediction.

Sent by John R. Otten | 3:08 PM ET | 10-05-2007

Waiting for the Clinton's to do something stupid is like waiting for gravity to make an apple fall.

Just the thought of Hillary sitting in the same chair that Bill did not make love to Monica in.......No, John. The American public might be ready for a woman president.

But they ain't ready for another Clinton soap opera. And I voted for Bill both times. America is not ready for 'Hillary the Desperate Housewife' and her 'You Know You're A Republican When' husband Bill as America's Ambassador to Hawaii's best golf courses with George the Elder Bush.

Besides, by then, Bill will be playing golf with retired George the Junior Bush.

fred call

and PS....Nixon called it the 'Silent Majority.' There are more voters happy to see the war going on in Iraq, and not here, then you care to think about is going to surprise you.

I know. I know. You read the cyberspace, virtual reality antiwar slogans.

You need to get out of the house and come talk to middle America, where the electoral college is won. That's how George the Junior won both times.

Sent by fred call | 5:03 PM ET | 10-05-2007

And the comment about Iraq eclipsing all issues.....Hillary has already said that if she's elected, she can't be expected to end the war in Iraq.

So, where is the Democratic Party's edge on Hillary Clinton come into play on the Iraq issue?

See, John, it's not being right wing or left wing. It's about not letting ideological slogans blur the reality of what's happening in Washington, and Iraq.

When you keep basing your political opinions on your idelological assumption that there is a candidate that will end the war, you automatically lose on logical points.

You contradict yourself. Which is a common nuance of ideological decision making, rather than factual decision making.

You can be ideologically illogical on the right. You can be ideologically illogical on the left.

Either way, that's not how politicians win in Washington.

I'd like to think the vast majority of NPR listeners rely on logic rather than ideological chants and slogans with no foundation. Regardless of their political leaning.

fred call

Sent by fred call | 5:42 PM ET | 10-05-2007

If the Democrats wanted to insure a victory for President, John Edwards should be their candidate. Sen. Clinton is anything but a slam dunk, and Sen. Obama will have to lose so that the next black candidate may have a chance to win.
Sen. Clinton has a long history, which providesd fodder for the Republicans. In addition, many people would never vote for her, regardless of the how much more qualified she may be over her opponent. Personally, I believe that that is a tragedy. Sen. Clinton would be a remarkably fine President. However, if she became the nominee, and the Republicans came up with a good candidate (which I don't any of their declared candidates qualify as), she may very well lose.

Sen. Obama personifies everything that America has always believed of itself. A land of opportunity, where anyone can succeed. He brings to the election a chance for America to return to its' historic roots and to continue our grand experiment of democracy, a land of freedom, of opportunity, of equality. Sadly, many in America in 2007, still judge a man by the color of his skin rather than by his character. His relative inexperience will serve as a shield for the closet bigots and racists to not vote for him, claiming, "He's not experienced enough." This is a shame. Sen. Obama can fill a need of America much more effectively than any of the other candidates. That need is a vision for future generations, not just a vision for the next election cycle.
That leaves John Edwards as the most electable candidate. A winning candidate, but a compromise candidate.

Sent by Vincent Palmisano | 8:55 PM ET | 10-05-2007

Get over it, Thomas, you won. Your victim lament is getting a little old. Thinking of yourself as a victim apparently is a life-long technique for firing yourself up to achieve. And you did, you are a Supreme Court Justice. Now, grow up, and get on with your life instead of whimpering about how you were abused.

Sent by julia ann evans | 6:17 AM ET | 10-06-2007

Vincent......I noticed Edwards came out comparing Hillary Clinton's campaign manager to Karl Rove.

As for Barack Obama being president, let me put it this way.

With all the New Yorkers running, Mario Cuomo stays out of the fray because an Italian American won't become president in -08. Nor will a Mexican American. Nor will a Jewish American. Nor will a Native American. Now will an Asian American.

That's the way the system works.

fred call

Sent by fred call | 10:51 AM ET | 10-06-2007

I think Vincent is correct. I am very much a Democrat, and I cannot and will not support either Clinton or Obama. I would prefer to support Edwards, but I would not rule out Richardson. If my only choice came down to Hilary or a Republican, I might move to Australia or Canada. I am really hoping for Clinton to do something stupid so she can get out of the race, and the sooner the better.

Sent by Lisa R | 8:13 PM ET | 10-06-2007

"Waiting for the Clinton's to do something stupid is like waiting for gravity to make an apple fall."

ok that's funny, F.C. Though it seems much more applicable to the present president.

"There are more voters happy to see the war going on in Iraq, and not here, then you care to think about is going to surprise you."

That may have been true in 2003 when el presidente was saying they had WMDs and were in league with Al-Qaida. NOW we know both of those assertions aren't true. We also know that Bin Laden was trapped in Afghanistan but bought his way out of it. Credit for not having been attacked by Al-Qaida here at home can be given to our heightened security measures and efforts by law enforcement, NOT the fact that there's a war in Iraq. In fact, the war in Iraq may make us MORE vulnerable because it's being used, quite successfully, as a recruting tool. The next generation of terroritst will likely be courtesy of our current military adventure.

"You need to get out of the house and come talk to middle America, where the electoral college is won. That's how George the Junior won both times." Yeah well in 2000 he didn't win the majority of American voters, middle or otherwise. In 2004 he barely won, carrying only 52 percent of the vote. For a sitting war-time president that's a very thin margin. Now you mention that Hillary won't stop the war. She probably can't. That's not the point. The point is why would anyone reward the GOP with their vote or trust them after the fiasco of the last eight years? You want no one to learn anything from the mistakes of the present regime, er, administration? Then simply elect another GOP man into the white house. No consequences, no change in behavior. Want to send a message? Vote Democrat. That's what the election will be about. A lot of people in middle America are watching thier young people come home in caskets right now. I know that much about them. From a war that was supposed to be a cakewalk, have paid for itself and be over by now.

Oh and please notice that I'm not basing any of this on ideological slogans but on real politics. You made some extremely erroneous statements about that regarding myself and I feel compelled to point out your error. Perhaps you made those assumptions because of your own belief in "ideological slogans"? Just a thought, Fred ol' buddy.

Sent by John R. Otten | 9:06 PM ET | 10-08-2007

John, you mentioned, "Now you mention that Hillary won't stop the war. She probably can't. That's not the point. The point is why would anyone reward the GOP with their vote or trust them after the fiasco of the last eight years? You want no one to learn anything from the mistakes of the present regime, er, administration?"

Well, John, this all sort of goes back to the original topic of Annita Hill versus the men in congress (and black Anita Hill, on top of it all). Which is to admit that, yes, white men in Washington do have an advantage. And only men of certain European ethnic background have an advantage in Washington, where the business of America is business.

Hence, yes, Anita Hill was doomed from the get-go. No argument there.

Now, fast forward to Hillary. Putting a woman....any woman......into the Oval Office is an experiment.

When one is on the cusp of nuclear war, one is prompted not to experiment too much.

The American voter is not ready to experiment in the face of nuclear or biological war. Barack and Hillary's time has not come. Will it come in the future? I don't know. This is not personal, ideological assumption on my part. This is not personal party belief. This is the way the Washington system works, and has always worked.

Hillary is in the most unpleasant position of being attached to Bill....and by extension, Monica. We wonder if Monica realizes how her name will go down in history books as having altered the course of American politics.

Now, fastback to Anita Hill's testimony against anti-affirmative action black judge Clarence Thomas. When all the pubic hair and Long Dong Silver talk came out in the hearing, the whole television scenario turned into tawdry, soap operatic tabloid smut. The congressional white men had no alternative but to confirm Clarence Thomas at that point. To save manly white face.

That's not ideological evaluation. That's fact of the way the system has worked since Jefferson (and Strom Thurmond) sired children by black women.

Is it a moral shame? Yes. Humankind is pretty much a mess in many respects.

Hillary will not only doom herself, she is likely to doom the Democratic Party in a massive landslide loss.

So, have at it. Enjoy the show come '08. Cause after '08, the Democratic Party has a major uphill road to anything resembling recovery. At least 2000 and 2004 were close.

So goes the cost of ideology in business minded Washington where corporate, global business is not the only thing, it's everything.

And all the ideological thinking in the world will not close Wal-Mart during the Christmas shopping sale season.

fred call

Sent by fred call | 2:52 PM ET | 10-09-2007