LOGO: Truthdig: Drilling Beneath the Headlines. A Progressive Journal of News and Opinion. Editor, Robert Scheer. Publisher, Zuade Kaufman.
2010 Webby Award Winner for Best Political Blog
 
May 26, 2012
Log in / Register

 Choose a size
Text Size

Trending:     robert scheer     barack obama     gay marriage     ndaa     chris hedges
Most Read

Say 'Hi-Ho!' as They Strip-Search You

TED: 'A Money-Soaked Orgy of Self-Congratulatory Futurism'

A Rare Admission That Money Trumps Everything Else

I Can't Hear Myself Think

Children Slaughtered in Government Attack on Syrian Town

Most Comments
Most Emailed

Reports
Why Bain Questions Matter
OSHA Struggles When Tower Climbers Die

Ear to the Ground

A/V Booth

Arts & Culture
Better Than We Found It
The Good-Natured Dictator

Digs
Financial Meltdown 101

Truthdig Bazaar
Street Without Joy

Street Without Joy

By Bernard Fall
$16.47

more items

 
Reports

The Thomas Clown Affair

Email this item Email    Print this item Print   

Posted on Oct 20, 2010

By Ruth Marcus

As a wife, I understand where Ginni Thomas is coming from.

In particular, as the wife of a husband who endured a far less bruising confirmation process and is now, as chairman of the Federal Trade Commission, far less the target of criticism, I feel her anger. Hell hath no fury like a wife whose husband has been publicly scorned.

My husband is Mr. Let’s Move On. I’m more Lady Macbeth with a Google alert. In my wifely capacity, not my columnist self, I remember—I still bristle at—every snarky quote, every unfair press release directed his way. If you worry that I’m referring to you, rest assured: I am.

So I’m not surprised if, nearly two decades later, Ginni Thomas remains consumed with the terrible injustice that she believes was done to her husband during his Supreme Court confirmation hearings. If she still wants the apology she believes is owed by Anita Hill, I can empathize.

In fact, from her point of view, Thomas phrased it rather nicely in the message she left on Hill’s office phone at Brandeis University: “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.”

Advertisement

A nice closing touch if you believe the person you’re addressing falsely accused your husband of sexual harassment.

So, one wife to another, I get it. As a reporter who covered every sordid minute of the Thomas-Hill hearings, I don’t. Ginni Thomas is wrong about who should apologize to whom.

(I should probably say here that I met my husband at those hearings. He was a staffer for a Democratic senator, I was The Washington Post’s Supreme Court correspondent, and we started dating afterward.)

Does anyone besides the two of them know the full truth about what happened between Clarence Thomas and Anita Hill when he was a Reagan administration official and she was a young lawyer on his staff? Perhaps not. But as I wrote when Clarence Thomas released his angry autobiography, the overwhelming weight of the evidence is on Hill’s side.

She complained to friends at the time about his behavior, telling one, Susan Hoerchner, that Thomas, then the chairman of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, had “repeatedly asked her out ... but wouldn’t seem to take ‘no’ for an answer.” Another former EEOC employee, Angela Wright, described how Thomas pressured her to date him, showed up uninvited at her apartment and asked her breast size.

Some of the strangest behavior that Hill cited—Thomas asking about a pubic hair on his Coke can, and his taste for extreme pornography—resonated with episodes from Thomas’ past. A college classmate, James Millet, recalled “an almost identical episode,” Kevin Merida and Michael Fletcher report in their biography, “Supreme Discomfort.”

Jane Mayer and Jill Abramson found two others who recalled a pubic hair-Coke can comment at the EEOC.

What’s a wife to do with this uncomfortable information? Clarence Thomas has taken the road of angry denial and, unless she’s about to let her marriage unravel over it, the path of least resistance may be for Ginni to join him there.

Why seek satisfaction from Hill now? One explanation might be that Ginni Thomas has recently found herself in the media cross-hairs over her role as head of a group dedicated to exposing the leftist “tyranny” of President Obama. Perhaps that has rekindled her unresolved feelings about Hill. Was it a coincidence that she made the call on the morning The New York Times ran a front-page story headlined, “Activism by Thomas’ Wife Could Raise Judicial Issues”? 

And what to make about the other party to this transaction, Anita Hill? Why not ignore the message, rather than refer it to the campus police? Why play it for reporters and give interviews about it? A voice mail on an office phone isn’t exactly intrusive, and there was no harassing follow-up. Ginni Thomas might have been out of line, but she wasn’t threatening in any way.

Mayer and Abramson titled their book “Strange Justice.” That adjective might be fairly applied to all the players in this seemingly never-ending episode.

Ruth Marcus’ e-mail address is marcusr(at symbol)washpost.com.

© 2010, Washington Post Writers Group


New and Improved Comments

We are launching a major overhaul of our comments section.

In addition to more robust spam filtering and moderation, new features include the ability to rate other comments, sort how they are displayed and respond directly via e-mail or in a thread.

Unfortunately, commenters will lose their existing Truthdig identities. It's a pain, we know, but on the plus side you will now be able to log in with a plethora of options, including Google, Twitter, Facebook and Disqus accounts.

Before launching this system we spent months in discussion with our top commenters. We listened to the feedback and we hope you like what we've come up with.

Please direct any problems or concerns to us via our contact page.

By AmiBlue, October 24, 2010 at 5:19 pm Link to this comment

Anita Hill has stated that she thought the call was a hoax and that’s why she turned it over to the campus authorities.  What sane person would have thought it anything else?

Report this

By Inherit The Wind, October 23, 2010 at 5:51 pm Link to this comment

Oh, and a former GF of CT has FINALLY come forward and corroborated Anita Hill’s testimony….CT is exactly the scumbag Hill portrayed him as.

No, Ginny Thomas is setting up a diversion, a BIG diversion…“Ignore that man behind the curtin!”

Report this

By CaptRon, October 23, 2010 at 1:15 pm Link to this comment

OOPS !! I forgot to mention, I smell an endorsement from Sarah Palin. Can’t forget to mention the Head Bag of the Tea Party.

Report this

By CaptRon, October 23, 2010 at 1:10 pm Link to this comment

I smell impending divorce. I smell Tea bagger in political mode. I smell book, maybe 2. I think the thud I heard was Clarence as he hit the floor. I smell new very rich ex-scorned wife with national political ambitions. I smell a woman in envy of Meg Whitman. I foresee a pubic hair in Clarence’s future, but it’s his own after post-public castration. All-in-all, it stinks for Anita Hill. Her name is forever linked to that jerk and will continue to be used for someone’s cruel pleasures without regard to repercussions for Ms. Hill or her privacy.

Report this
James M. Martin's avatar

By James M. Martin, October 22, 2010 at 7:56 pm Link to this comment

The more pressing question is, how do we get rid of this lunatic?  Please, only legal answers.

Report this

By curmudgeon99, October 22, 2010 at 7:48 pm Link to this comment

Yes, Virginia, there is a Santa Claus.


I’m sure you haven’t been naughty….or, have you?

Maybe you should watch for the switches.

Report this
mack894's avatar

By mack894, October 22, 2010 at 4:14 pm Link to this comment

I have to agree with you inherit the wind. This has more to do with Ginny Thomas
than Anita Hill, whose legacy is pretty secure. Clarence Thomas’s legacy is, on the
other hand, tainted. He won’t go down in history as an outstanding SC but as a
puppet and rubber stamp of the right wing whose decisions were probably more
vengeful than thoughtful.

Once again the Right achieved their short term goal—to get their way, to get
Thomas in, no matter the cost to the country, the democracy.

There is little pride being the spouse of Clarence Thomas.  I just know she didn’t
consult him before making that call.

Report this

By Inherit The Wind, October 22, 2010 at 3:53 pm Link to this comment

It’s very easy to say Virginia Thomas is “dumb as a chicken”.

But let’s make three assumptions, just for grins:

1) Virginia Thomas is NOT dumb, but instead is very bright and very shrewd.
2) Virginia Thomas knows damn well Clarence did everything Anita Hill related and probably more.
3) Virginia Thomas is sane and not delusional.

If these three assumptions are ALL true, where does this take us?  It means Mrs. Thomas KNOWS Anita Hill told the truth and didn’t lie.  It means her husband is exactly the scumbag we think he is.

But what it really means is she (Virginia Thomas) has an agenda.  Why draw Anita Hill out?  Is it merely to make her a punching bag YET AGAIN for the Far Right?  Is it a GIANT red herring to hide, in plain sight, her totally inappropriate political actions?  Or is it another agenda?

In every scenario I can come up with where those 3 assumptions hold, the conclusions are pretty scary.

Think about it.

Report this

By Laudyms, October 22, 2010 at 1:57 pm Link to this comment

“As a wife” you understand being married for 23 years and not having a clue who your husband is ??? She’s dumb as a chicken.

Report this

By rancone, October 22, 2010 at 11:03 am Link to this comment

“Why not ignore the message, rather than refer it to the campus police? “

This is the fallacy of this article. Why indeed. That this is an article, that it is a topic of discussion is because the phone call is so unusual after nineteen years.  Anita Hill cannot be made responsible for deciding the legitimacy or purpose or what happens next in such a bizarre (in my and perhaps Anita Hill’s opinion) phone call.

The best way to resolve the issue “is this just a phone call or something else” is to have the next level of review look at the incident. The follow up question is always. What did you do when you received the first contact from this person? A non reaction always weakens the defense or credibility of the victim.

The writer of this article knows this and has presented sloppy journalism in presenting the question about the victim.

Report this
mack894's avatar

By mack894, October 21, 2010 at 4:09 pm Link to this comment

The timing is indeed telling. Mrs Thomas is under some scrutiny w/regard to
the “anonymous” and sizable donations to her new right-wing group. one
totalling half million dollars. This phone call coming at the time of that launch
and during the midterm elections (amidst her public comments about Obama’s
destruction of the country) is curious.  You know, I don’t believe she really
thinks her husband is innocent.

This isn’t a stupid woman, and, yes, all of us are apt to fall into the denial
syndrome when there’s something we don’t want to face.  But the passing of
years and cooling of passion can make rational people of us all. Perhaps this
was an outrageous way to get Anita Hill to tell her what her husband did, to find
a way to accept it…and then DIVORCE the bum.  People in the public eye take
strange detours to the truth when they finally want to reach it.

Report this

By Jimnp72, October 21, 2010 at 1:43 pm Link to this comment

Im afraid that Clarence is a bucket of porcine slime-he has proved this repeatedly with his so-
called rulings on the bench-he is not competent to be a justice. He was a total reactionary moron
when appointed, and it has been downhill for him ever since.
Sure he did what he was he was accused of; probably did a lot more that never came out.
All he and his fellow repugs can do is obstruct obstruct obstruct and then complain bitterly that
nothing gets done.

Report this

By John, October 21, 2010 at 11:20 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Ms Hill has been victimized more than once by Clarence Thomas, but Ms Marcus thinks she really shouldn’t respond-she should just let it go. Don’t group this call in with those from the many callers who have threatened her over the years-just let it go.

Just let it go seems to be Ms Marcus’ response to so many issues. Recall that she has argued that American torturers in the Bush administration should not be held accountable for their crimes-that we should just let it go. (google Marcus Torture)

And when, inevitably, Obama becomes involved in a torture scandal (you folks do know that Obama is running secret prisons, don’t ya?)it will be interesting to see what “liberal” torture apologists like Marcus, Garrison Keillor and Leonard Pitts have to say about it this time.

Report this

By Inherit The Wind, October 20, 2010 at 7:51 pm Link to this comment

My theory is this is the next red-herring in a long line of them, the next “President’s Birth Certificate” blow up: “Why won’t Anita Hill apologize?” will be on the lips of Glenn Beck, Rush Limbaugh, Bill O’Reilly, all the slanted Faux Noise, and, of course, of Sarah Palin.  And, in part, Marcus is right: To steer away from Virginia Thomas’s blatant political activities that in any sane society would demand her husband leave the Court.

Anita Hill has been subjected to YEARS of harassment.  When it seems to be starting up again, she did what should be done—reported it.

I hope it comes back to haunt Justice Thomas so he is forced to retire, and let President Obama appoint someone who understands the Constitution.

Report this

By rasputin, October 20, 2010 at 6:37 pm Link to this comment

Thomas was out of line.
Her arrogance is incredible.
It’s deliberately provocative, and must have been calculated to add to the general teabagging of the political atmosphere.

Report this

By M. Bouffant, October 20, 2010 at 4:28 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

I think Ms. Hill turned it over to campus security, as
she really had no idea if it really was Mrs. Thomas
calling. Then campus security went to the FBI.

Report this

By Daffyd ap Morgen, October 20, 2010 at 4:11 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

The timing of this just before the mid-term elections is also of concern. I wonder if this is the “shot across the bows” from a vengeful Ms. Thomas—waiting for the conservative victory so she can have Anita Hill “re-investigated.” “This is your last chance before it’s too late. Recant now.”

Report this

By ibh, October 20, 2010 at 3:12 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Oh Ginni,

What has your husband done lately. A phone message left at work is not private, Ms. Hill did the right thing.

Maybe Thomas is getting ready to dump number 2.

Report this

By lasmog, October 20, 2010 at 2:21 pm Link to this comment

I don’t think Anita Hill was out of line by publicizing this strange voice mail message. Thomas’ wife has made herself a public figure and her actions in contacting Hill are odd and a little bit unnerving.

Report this

By Pat, October 20, 2010 at 2:11 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Seems like Ginni T. is on some power trip requesting Anita H apologize to her spouse….....I wonder what her husband thinks of this!!!  I watched the hearings and saw first hand how they were slanted against Anita Hill.  Seems like the G. is asking the wrong person for an apology .........

Report this
Newsletter

Get Truthdig in your inbox


 
 
 
Join the Liberal Blog Advertising Network
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

A Progressive Journal of News and Opinion. Editor, Robert Scheer. Publisher, Zuade Kaufman.
Copyright © 2012 Truthdig, L.L.C. All rights reserved.