Ginni Thomas, the wife of Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas did an odd thing the other day. She phoned the woman who accused her husband of being a sexual harrasser two decades ago and left a message asking her to apologize.

The woman, Anita Hill, did an even odder thing: She called the cops.

WaPo's Ruth Marcus says it isn't Ginni Thomas or her husband who deserves an apology but Anita Hill.

Marcus claims to understand that as a wife she knows where Ginni Thomas is coming from, but she covered the Thomas confirmation hearings for the Washington Post and, having weighed the evidence, such as it was, she believes Hill.

Not very shocking that, especially given the fact that Marcus met her future husband at those hearing, a man she identifies a "Democratic staffer."

It was Democratic staffers like Ruth Marcus' husband who were out to get and stop Thomas from being confirmed as a Supreme Court Justice by whatever means necessary. His conservative views and beliefs were just too much for them to stomach in such an important position of power, especially for a black man.

So they found and used Anita Hill to embarrass and smear him. And it was only thanks to Thomas' angry but dignified response to this crude attempt at character assassination, that the Senate confirmed him. They were too embarrassed not to.

As Camille Paglia wrote at the time:

Hill woodenly related the content of conversations without any reference to their context or tone. The senators never asked about joking, smiles, facial expressions, hers as well as his. Every social encounter is a game being played by two parties. I suspect Hill’s behavior was compliant and, to use her own word about a recent exchange with a Thomas friend, “passive.” Judging by her subsequent cordial behavior toward Thomas, Hill chose to put her career interests above feminist principle. She went along to get along. Hence it is hypocritical of her, ten years later, to invoke feminist principle when she did not have the courage to stand on it before. For feminists to make a heroine out of Hill is to insult all those other women who have taken a bolder, more confrontational course and forfeited career advantage.

In this case, the sexual harassment issue was a smoke screen, cynically exploited to serve another issue, abortion rights. Although I am firmly pro-choice, I think there should be no single-issue litmus test for nominees to the Supreme Court. And the strategy backfired. Thomas, who had seemed bland and evasive for the prior hundred days of the hearings, emerged under fire with vastly increased stature. He was passionate, forceful, dignified.

Make no mistake: it was not a White House conspiracy that saved this nomination. It was Clarence Thomas himself. After eight hours of Hill’s testimony, he was driven as low as any man could be. But step by step, with sober, measured phrases, he regained his position and turned the momentum against his accusers. It was one of the most powerful moments I have ever witnessed on television. Giving birth to himself, Thomas reenacted his own credo of self-made man.

One of those smarmy accusers, in so far as he was working for the Democrats on the committee, was Ruth Marcus' future husband.

They were meant for each other.