Like Clarence Thomas before him, Brett Kavanaugh cloaked himself in the mantle of victimhood. “You have replaced advise and consent with search and destroy,” he railed in testimony before the Senate judiciary committee that lurched between histrionics and outrage.

It was an outrageous performance, a total contrast to the dignity and credibility exuded by Dr Christine Blasey Ford. But it quite possibly was an effective one. From the White House, President Trump, unsurprisingly, pronounced himself delighted.

I was in the Senate judiciary committee hearing room back in 1991 when Anita Hill was testifying and watching Thursday’s proceedings on television, I was struck, repeatedly, by the similarities. One of the most telling was that Judge Kavanaugh, like Thomas, said he did not even watch the testimony of his accuser, Dr Ford. Categorical denial was his strategy from the get go, before Dr Ford had given a word of her testimony.

The categorical denial strategy worked brilliantly for Thomas in 1991. It may succeed again, unless Republicans like Susan Collins, Lisa Murkowski or Jeff Flake show they have a conscience. Thursday’s hearing, with Dr Ford as the lone accuser, was designed to end in a he said/she said stalemate, just as the Hill-Thomas hearings did. And, as Clarence Thomas did, Judge Kavanaugh enjoyed the advantage of getting the last word.

Same stacked hearing and, quite possibly, the same outcome.

In some ways, Thursday’s hearing was worse than Hill-Thomas. Although the Republicans were careful not to attack Dr Ford directly and hid behind the skirts of the so-called “female assistant” they hired to do their questioning, they hurled the big lie at Dr Ford. They built a false case that Dr Ford was part of a Democratic conspiracy to bring down a conservative nominee. It was a shameful, baseless charge, almost as bad as when Republicans in 1991 tried to paint Hill as an erotomaniac who made up her charges. The truth is that Dr Ford came forward only reluctantly and with no partisan aim.

Rachel Mitchell, the sex crimes prosecutor who led the questioning of Dr Ford for the Republicans, added almost nothing of value. Her questioning seemed aimless. What she did do is provide a shield for the Republican senators who did not want to risk alienating female voters with overly aggressive or inappropriate questions. They did not want to appear as out of it as the all-male judiciary committee was in 1991.

Dr Ford, unfortunately, appeared as a lone accuser. This was a key part of the Republican strategy

But Chairman Charles Grassley looked like he was running to win an award for bumbling and fumbling. As she sat before him, the Iowa Republican did not even acknowledge Dr Ford before he began the hearings with an inchoate litany of complaints.

The bright spot of the day was Dr Ford’s moving and completely credible testimony. I thought of Anita Hill repeatedly as Dr Ford told her story. Two truth-tellers wearing blue.

Time seemed to stop when Dr Ford was asked how sure she was about her allegations. Without hesitation, she answered: “100% certain.”

She described herself as being “terrified”, but it was her resolve, humanity and directness that made such a powerful impression. Her training in psychology and trauma helped buttress the importance of certain haunting memories, like the sound of laughter from Kavanaugh and his accomplice, Mark Judge, as they allegedly assaulted her, jumping on top of her and trying to remove her clothes.

“Indelible in the hippocampus,” she explained, with a measured distance that made her so persuasive, “is the laughter, the uproarious laughter, between the two, and their having fun at my expense.”

Across America, women were sobbing in their cars, shaking at their desks as well as protesting outside the US Senate, while Dr Ford recounted how she feared for her life as Kavanaugh, then a teenager, tried to rape her.

We knew her story already, but it was her detailed, visualized recollections that made Dr Blasey Ford such a commanding and persuasive witness. She made her terror at that long ago party where she was assaulted palpable and believable.

By refusing to order an FBI investigation or subpoena Mark Judge or hear the other women who have come forward in recent days with similar sexual misconduct allegations against Judge Kavanaugh, Dr Ford, unfortunately, appeared as a lone accuser. This was a key part of the Republican strategy, just as it was in 1991.

Anita Hill had corroborating witnesses, too. There were other women who worked for Clarence Thomas and had similar allegations. But their testimony was never publicly heard. Isolating Hill as the lone accuser was vital to saving Thomas’s court seat, just as isolating Ford is the only way for the Kavanaugh nomination to survive.

Republicans say they will push on with a confirmation vote in the coming days. They risk a tidal wave of backlash from voters, especially women, who know Dr Ford is the truth-teller. In 1991, residual anger over the way Hill was treated by the Senate judiciary committee helped elect a group of women to the senate who called themselves the Anita Hill class.

The Christine Blasey Ford class will likely be much bigger. It’s unfortunate, of course, that the price for this may be a lifetime appointment to the supreme court for someone who clearly lacks the character for the job.

Any woman who has been dismissed, put down, made fun of, disrespected or worse knew exactly why Christine Blasey Ford came to Washington to tell the painful truth. Me too.