I remember the Thomas hearings quite well, watching every minute from bed with a bad back. If Biden had, as Skylark suggests, hung Anita Hill out there, not allowing any witnesses who would back her up, I'd be seconding Skylark's emotion.

But other witnesses did back up a pattern of behavior that should have killed the nomination, and the public knew about it the next day.

Angela Wright, told the Senate Judiciary Committee behind closed doors that Thomas had repeatedly made similar comments to her, and was basically a creepy pig.

While Biden, chair of the Judiciary Committee, decided against publicly hearing Wright's testimony, it was in the papers the next day. Remember, the issue was whether Hill's testimony was credible, and her testimony was so explosive, having others testify about lesser acts of conduct ranging from the boorish to the improper, only diminished the impact of Hill's testimony.

And there were others who said that Thomas was unfit, by his behavior, including a District Court judge. And every member of the Senate was aware of it. I'm not sure that Biden's strategy was wrong, or that more testimony of the type Hill made would have switched any votes.

As the guy who wrote Violence Against Women Act, I think Biden gets it. And I think he got it then, struggling to juggle allowing explosive testimony with the limits he could get out of the Committee.

But if we disagree over how the Thomas hearings were handled, certainly we can agree that Biden was wonderful during the Bork hearings, and dropped him in the trick bag pretty well.

...kicking women in the teeth while mouthing pieties about feminism and calling women "sweetie."...

I've been called "sweetie" before by women. Believe me, there are all sorts of ways to voice the word. But even when it's used sarcastically or dismissively, it isn't much of an epithet. I've been called much worse.

So has John McCain's wife, I gather.

However, Barack Obama and/or Joe Biden "kicking women in the teeth"- that really is a blockbuster revelation, if you can manage to confirm it.

Is any other well-known senator a better representative of the interests of a certain segment of Israeli opinion, than Joe Lieberman? The segment that wants to keep much if not all of the West Bank, and much if not all of the Golan Heights. The segment that manipulates the levers of power in the US to obstruct any settlement of these issues.

Philadelphia Steve quotes me and queries me as follows: "Re: 'I am a Democrat who, like Conason, has adopted the perspective of our candidates, minimizing problems and arguing for their manifest superiority. Not this time.'

If you are willing to go back thirty years or so, does how John McCain treated his first wife count? Or does he get that automatic "Free Pass" from "Democrats" such as yourself?"

MY ANSWER: Getting a law degree when he should have been thrown out of school goes to qualifications for office and hits my hot button, which is phony credentials and sneaky little students whom I know well. Biden is a blowhard and a liar who is not very bright. McCain is what is he is--a Navy man who was wild when younger and whose first marriage broke up, most likely for lots of reasons. I would cut him some slack after he spent five and a half years in a dungeon in Vietnam. He has never claimed to be other than a flawed somewhat fun-loving fellow--he was a crummy student and never claimed otherwise (unlike Biden, who lied to voters about this standing in law school). Also, I am responsible for the Democratic Party's standards of conduct, and the candidates don't meet them this year. Marital stuff is very dicey as a test for office--if you're not a blatant hypocrite or a public menace, I'm not going to try to reconstruct a marital failure from long ago. McCain's ex-wife likes him, and so do I. I'll take a man's man who is of his era over two crummy little prevaricators who just love kicking women in the teeth while mouthing pieties about feminism and calling women "sweetie." And once again, I have voted for every Democrat since Humphrey and may have voted one time in my life for one minor Republica candidate. The essence of being a Democrat is apparently very elusive and requires adjudication by Obama robots. Or maybe we should talk about wishful thinking.

If Biden's plagiarism bothers you, I'd like to know who you're going to vote for, because the thought of a President McCain must make your head explode. McCain is the most personally corrupt member of the Senate - after Ted Stevens, and Teddy doesn't beat him by much. He is a serial adulterer. He cheated on his first wife with more women than can be counted, and dumped her (after she became a cripple) to marry his rich mistress. He engaged in adultery with women who were subordinate to him and in his direct chain of command - a serious crime under the UCMJ. He has continued to cheat on his wife, stopping only a few months ago when it became clear that he might win the GOP nomination. Do some research on the lobbyists who whore before his committees - please note how many are tall, thin, young, blond, and female.

Over and over his political career, McCain gets caught with his hands in the cookie jar, and he yammers about his honor and the press goes away. His wife is a drug addict and a criminal who escaped jail because she's rich and white and the wife of a US senator. He got into Annapolis because of his daddy and granddaddy, graduated fifth from the bottom of his class, wrecked five airplanes, has spent his life on the government dole, and has never earned an honest nickel in his life. (He gives nepotism a bad name.) He suffers from untreated PTSD, and on more than one occasion has gone into a rage and called his wife a fucking cunt in front of other people.

Seriously, I'd like to know who you're going to be voting for this year.