Liberals are as upset with Clarence Thomas as with George W Bush. The temerity of him, having opinions different from them--it's as upsetting as if a chess piece had made its own move.
A (liberal) young lady who is a relative of mine attended a lecture by Anita Hill. She thought Hill sounded credible.
So what? If all her accusations against Thomas were true, he was not guilty of any crime. He did not force her to go out with him. He did not demote or fire her. The worst he could be accused of is bad taste. As for Hill, testifying against Thomas was her best career move of a lifetime. How else in the world would she be commanding substantial fees for speaking to a group? Is she distinguished as a lawyer or a law professor, has she written notable scholarly articles? Not to my knowledge. Her main achievement in life appears to be as the albatross around the neck of Justice Thomas.
How long has it been since Justice Thomas's confirmation hearing? 20 years or more--look it up if you care to. I know I was much younger then, and so was he, and so was she. If anything ever falls into the category of old news, this is it. Heard anything of Bill Clinton's capers in the White House recently? Neither have I.
Thomas would not stand a chance of confirmation nowadays. The professional liberals are now willing to admit openly how much they loathe a black man whose ideas differ from theirs. They don't need the fig leaf of an Anita Hill's testimony; their rancor would be sufficient to prevent him from being confirmed.