What is it that Biden’s accuser wants?

I am not afraid to wade into the shark-infested waters of gender politics, so here I go once more. We all remember that while Sen. Al Franken “voluntarily” resigned because of allegations of high school prank-type behavior, Brett Kavanaugh was confirmed for the U.S. Supreme Court despite allegations of sexual misconduct as a college student many years ago, and with the help of all six female Republican senators. Lisa Murkowski voted “present” after having first indicated that she would vote against confirming Kavanaugh, and Susan Collins voted to confirm, claiming that "I do not believe that these charges can fairly prevent Judge Kavanaugh from serving on the court." With allegations of misconduct by Joe Biden by a former staffer named Tara Reade, people would think that Donald Trump and his various right-wing familiars would be in a feeding frenzy over that, but one suspects that Trump “sympathizes” with Biden about that (they are all “liars”) and his fellow Republicans do not want to “remind” people of what Trump is alleged to have gotten away with, and with whose “help.” 

Reade was one of a number of women who stepped forward to claim that Biden had touched them in an overly “friendly” manner which they felt was “inappropriate.”  After it appeared that Biden would become the Democratic nominee, Reade “upgraded” her accusation to unwanted groping of a sexual nature in an incident back in 1993, including “fingering” her in her private area. There are now one or two people coming forward who suddenly remember that Reade mentioned this encounter, as a way of “confirming” that it actually happened. It is interesting to note that as in the cases of Clarence Thomas and Kavanaugh, such accusations arise at curious times, such as when initial attacks (involving, say, abortion) fail to gain traction, the old standby attack of sexual misconduct is brought up to use as a battering ram to knock the walls over. It is also interesting to note that these days such attacks do not seem to carry as much weight as accusations of domestic violence against figures in public office, yet the opposite is true among non-political “celebrities,” like Bill Cosby and the late Jeffrey Epstein. 

Reade and her supporters have expressed their disgust over the mainstream media’s “failure” to broach the subject during interviews with Biden. It is clear why this is so: Reade’s accusations “out of the blue” might seem intended to derail Biden’s nomination, perhaps nursing a long-held grudge and now deciding this was the “right” time to make public her accusation. The “right” time, of course, was when this incident actually occurred, not 27 years later. If it had been made public then, it might (or might not) have affected Biden’s stature among voters, much like Ted Kennedy’s presidential ambitions were never really able to shake the Chappaquiddick incident. But bringing this up now opens Reade’s motives to question. Reade is “outraged” that the media that most wants to see Trump defeated and sees Biden as the best that Democrats have to do that job obviously want nothing to do with her accusations. With Hillary Clinton endorsing Biden, it is even more “imperative” that this whole thing “go away.”

But the question is “What does Reade want?” Does she want Biden to “admit” to what he allegedly did to her, and publicly “apologize”? Does she just want to “shame” him? Does she want him prosecuted? Does she want to destroy his presidential ambitions? Or is she just infected with the “MeToo” bug? Observing Biden's memory lapses, he probably completely forgot about the alleged encounter. It isn’t all that clear why she has brought this all up now—unless, of course, she has an ulterior personal motive. If Biden is forced out as nominee, who would Reade want to see replace him? Bernie Sanders is next in line, but I doubt Reade approves of him because of what he “did” to Hillary.

Let’s step back a moment and consider who it was that made gender “victimization” a major issue during this primary season. Yes, that’s right, the woman who the media genuflects before her every word as if she is God Almighty—Elizabeth Warren. Yes, this fake “progressive” who is more “against” things than “for” things. How do we know she is a fake progressive? Warren not only never criticized Amy “I will not support a progressive nominee” Klobuchar’s positions during the debates and repeatedly ignored their allegedly “wide” ideological differences, but preferred to point out their shared “experience” as (privileged white) women—although Klobuchar herself refrained from using “gendered” language or accusations during her campaign. The media has made much of Warren’s alleged “suitability” as a potential vice president, ignoring the very substantial character and truthfulness debits she would bring to the ticket that could and would be used against her.

I don’t know if Reade thinks that her accusations against Biden might “elevate” a fake gender victim like Warren (you know, the person who got jobs as a “minority hire”) to the top of the ticket. Or maybe she just likes how it “feels” to be a “little person” destroying someone who could be president, and perhaps even warranting a footnote in the history books rather than merely in social media posts. Obviously such accusations did not stop Bill Clinton or Donald Trump from being elected president. Myself, I have made it clear that I think Sanders is best suited to beat Trump, not Biden (or Warren), but the Democratic powers-that-be wanted Biden, and they are going to have to live with that choice.