Sharon Bialek accuses Herman Cain of groping her

[Jimbuna]

Originally Posted by AVGWarhawk

Then what was she trying to do?



http://www.thedaily.com/page/2011/11...n-accuser-1-3/

Put the record straight

[AVGWarhawk]

Originally Posted by jimbuna

Put the record straight

What records? There are no records. It is a she said he said as I see it.

I wonder how many other women will step out. Cain looks like a serial groper to me.

[tater]

I am unaware that any of the others even said there was contact.

This seems pretty fishy, frankly. I'm fine with investigating, but since the investigating will be done by the media, how about they do it with the same effort and tone they put to the 4 (?) accusers (not counting Lewinsky, a case of clear sexual harassment (any sexual contact with someone who works for you is off limits)) of Clinton. One of whom accused rape as I recall.

It's been a while, but I clearly recall a tone of suggesting the accusers were trailer trash in for the money, or with a political axe to grind. That's never said when the accused is on the right, the tone is of the accusers as whistle-blowers in this case.

The latest woman's choice of bottom-feeders is telling. Alred only takes cases on one side. She refused to represent on of Clinton's accusers (who I think claimed she could ID his prick).

It's been a while, but I clearly recall a tone of suggesting the accusers were trailer trash in for the money, or with a political axe to grind. That's never said when the accused is on the right, the tone is of the accusers as whistle-blowers in this case.

you don't even have to travel very far to see that your claim is bollox

[Rockstar]

Lets see here we have allegations, no proof, sex, race and a guy running for POTUS...what more could you want?...cha ching! What media outlet is the least bit concerned about truth, guilt or innocence. When Cain is no longer worth it, big media will cut bait and he'll slowly sink to the bottom... then on to the next Big Story!

I'll say this, one thing is certain when the dust has settled. Cain will have become an unfavorable candidate in the eyes of women voters. Mission Accomplished

[AVGWarhawk]

Originally Posted by Rockstar

Lets see here we have allegations, no proof, sex, race and a guy running for POTUS...what more could you want?...cha ching! Not one media outlet is in the least bit concerned about truth, guilt or innocence. When Cain is no longer worth it, big media will cut bait and he'll slowly sink to the bottom... then on to the next Big Story!

I'll say this though, out of all of this media hype and sensationalism one thing is certain. Cain will have become an unfavorable candidate in the eyes of women voters.

But why? Why would big media want to sink Cain? Who is behind it?

PS...women still love Bill Clinton.

[tater]

Originally Posted by AVGWarhawk

But why? Why would big media want to sink Cain? Who is behind it?

PS...women still love Bill Clinton.

I don't think there is a conspiracy in the press. I think reporters are always gunning for "their side." The vast majority of reporters are well left of the US center. I know several reporters, all would agree (at the NYT, NPR, the local paper, and Bloomberg). (I found an msnbc report of political contributions by reporters... you can read the full list, but counting the Rs vs Ds is left as an excercise for the reader (you have to wade through many Ds to get to a single R) http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19113455.../#.Trmp-GBlp7J ).

I think that if the majority were right of center, coverage would be slanted to the right. All news is biased.

It should be possible for someone that knows how to do story counts (there are systems in place to do word, story, etc counts on the news media) to compare the volume of coverage on Cain vs, say, Obama's association with domestic terrorist Bill Ayres. Or Obama losing all his records from his time as a lawyer and state rep. Or his lack of college transcripts, etc, ad nauseum.

I'm fine with digging up dirt on ALL OF THEM, as long as it is done with equal fervor.

I think some of the Cain crap sounds fishy, but I also think too many and it starts smelling of a pattern on his part, too. I am not a Cain defender, I just want equal digging. Look at the number of reporters sent to turn over rocks in Alaska vs Palin (who I actively dislike, BTW). She was getting more "investigation" to try and cut her off at the knees than Obama got running at the front of the ticket***8212;and WAY more than Biden ever got (and they needed to do nothing at all to smear Palin other than let her open her mouth and make some dumb statement out loud).

[tater]

Originally Posted by Tribesman

you don't even have to travel very far to see that your claim is bollox

You lived in the US during the Clinton administration, did you? You followed the news?

I don't even remember the names of Clinton's accusers. But there were even lawsuits. The news even reported on clinton being "teflon," here. Women's groups never chimed in to help stamp out sexual harassment, etc.

I'm sure at some point someone in conservative media will do a lexis/nexis search and do story counts on Clinton vs Cain. And Cain is not president, so his coverage should be an order of magnitude lower than it would be for a President to be accused of rape, etc.

Every single time there is a study of the way the US media covers politicians, it shows that they are harder on the right. This is unsurprising given that something like 80% of reporters are self-identified as liberals or democrats. They point to Fox as if that balances everything, but while Fox owns the cable news market, their total viewers is a small fraction of the network news.

The idea that the press gave Clinton a pass on his pre-presidential extracurricular sex life is uncontroversial.

[mookiemookie]

Originally Posted by tater

You lived in the US during the Clinton administration, did you? You followed the news?

I don't even remember the names of Clinton's accusers. But there were even lawsuits. The news even reported on clinton being "teflon," here. Women's groups never chimed in to help stamp out sexual harassment, etc.

I'm sure at some point someone in conservative media will do a lexis/nexis search and do story counts on Clinton vs Cain. And Cain is not president, so his coverage should be an order of magnitude lower than it would be for a President to be accused of rape, etc.

Every single time there is a study of the way the US media covers politicians, it shows that they are harder on the right. This is unsurprising given that something like 80% of reporters are self-identified as liberals or democrats. They point to Fox as if that balances everything, but while Fox owns the cable news market, their total viewers is a small fraction of the network news.

The idea that the press gave Clinton a pass on his pre-presidential extracurricular sex life is uncontroversial.

So if it's all the big bad media giving Team D a pass on these sort of things, how is it that David Vitter still has a job and Eliot Spitzer and Anthony Weiner don't?

Or maybe you're wrong and the media loves a good sex scandal, regardless. As Tribesman said - bollox.

[tater]

Originally Posted by mookiemookie

So if it's all the big bad media giving Team D a pass on these sort of things, how is it that David Vitter still has a job and Eliot Spitzer and Anthony Weiner don't?

Or maybe you're wrong and the media loves a good sex scandal, regardless. As Tribesman said - bollox.

Without story counts, etc, there is no data. I'm interested in actual word counts on stories—and given a pre-primary candidate is a lower character than a sitting senator, president, etc, it should be way lower than people in those positions with similar allegations.

In the case of Wiener, there were PICTURES on the net. If there was actual, you know, evidence, I'd have a different opinion about this cain thing. The idea that women don't lie about this is absurd. Without actual evidence, the benefit of the doubt is to the accused, period. This goes for Clinton, too. But again, you have to hold every single one to the exact, same standard. That means identical coverage, identical tone—scaled to stuff like, say, actual evidence. Meaning that when you have pictures of sexting, it's no longer a he said, she said, it's a simple FACT.

Wiener would still have a job, except he lied about it. Once you look the camera in the eye a few times and tell a whopper, you are toast. Same will be true of Cain if anyone has actual evidence. His resignation was his won choice.

Spitzer was found out because they thought he was taking bribes because of odd expenditures, and caught him on a wire tap. They also thought he used campaign funds for liaisons. Again, real evidence. He resigned likely out of fear more would come out.

Vitter was had his name in the phone list of that DC madam scandal. He apologized with his wife there. Since he didn't make it into a bigger story by trying to run away, he managed to keep his job. It's not like it wasn't covered.

[Jimbuna]

Originally Posted by AVGWarhawk

What records? There are no records. It is a she said he said as I see it.

I wonder how many other women will step out. Cain looks like a serial groper to me.

I would say she is possibbly cutting her first record/disc

[AVGWarhawk]

Originally Posted by jimbuna

I would say she is possibbly cutting her first record/disc