Sharon Bialek accuses Herman Cain of groping her

[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).

[AVGWarhawk]

I agree Tater. For me this is a railroad job. Were is the paperwork showing settlements? The seed has been planted in the heads of the voters. His campaign will be on a thread.

[Dread Knot]

A more recent and blatant example would be former democratic presidential frontrunner John Edwards. The story of his relationship (and child) with a staffer was aggressively squelched by the mainstream media and press (including the New York Times). Edwards was their boy. It took the National Enquirer of all media institutions to bring the story to light. He's political persona non grata now.

[vienna]

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—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).

I also believe in equal digging. But, as you pointed out, there appears to be a pattern emerging. Some troubling aspects have also arisen. One of the women involved in this story actually had to get a waiver on a confidentaility agreement signed as part of her settlement with the Restaurant Association to be able to make a statement about her case. She then made a statement through her attorney affirming the incident, but made the statement anonymously and has stated she has no intention of pursuing the matter either in the media or in the courts. This is a highly unusual occurance and lends credence to her allegations as she appears to merely be affirming the facts as she experienced. She has no known connection to any "enemies" of Cain and it doesn't help Cain that she is also a registered Republican.

Then there is the matter of Cain's handling of the reports. First he denied it ever happened at all. Then he said, well, something happened but no claims were filed. Then he said, yes there were claims but no settlements. Then there was money paid, but it was severance, not a settlement. Then It wasn't really severance, it was a settlement, but for a small amount. Then the amounts were actually substantial. Then he said.... and it goes on and on... Cain's memory seems to switch on and off faster than he can think up his next excuse. The situation has gotten to the point where he is verging into Clinton-esque "It depends on what the meaning of the word 'is' is." parsing of his version of the (no pun intended) affair.

The question that really needs to be asked by anyone thinking of voting for Cain, or any other candidate, for that matter: Is he/she really an outsider and a "breath of fresh air", or is he/she just another political wanna-be carrying the poltical stench of duplicity, opportunism, and business as usual? As the Who song says, "Meet the new boss, same as the old boss"...

[August]

Originally Posted by vienna

I also believe in equal digging. But, as you pointed out, there appears to be a pattern emerging. Some troubling aspects have also arisen. One of the women involved in this story actually had to get a waiver on a confidentaility agreement signed as part of her settlement with the Restaurant Association to be able to make a statement about her case. She then made a statement through her attorney affirming the incident, but made the statement anonymously and has stated she has no intention of pursuing the matter either in the media or in the courts. This is a highly unusual occurance and lends credence to her allegations as she appears to merely be affirming the facts as she experienced. She has no known connection to any "enemies" of Cain and it doesn't help Cain that she is also a registered Republican.

Lend credence? If she is anonymous then how do we know if any of her claims are true? How could anyone know who she is connected with, or how she votes? She is a phantom as far as i'm concerned.

Then there is the matter of Cain's handling of the reports. First he denied it ever happened at all. Then he said, well, something happened but no claims were filed. Then he said, yes there were claims but no settlements. Then there was money paid, but it was severance, not a settlement. Then It wasn't really severance, it was a settlement, but for a small amount. Then the amounts were actually substantial. Then he said.... and it goes on and on... Cain's memory seems to switch on and off faster than he can think up his next excuse. The situation has gotten to the point where he is verging into Clinton-esque "It depends on what the meaning of the word 'is' is." parsing of his version of the (no pun intended) affair.

The question that really needs to be asked by anyone thinking of voting for Cain, or any other candidate, for that matter: Is he/she really an outsider and a "breath of fresh air", or is he/she just another political wanna-be carrying the poltical stench of duplicity, opportunism, and business as usual? As the Who song says, "Meet the new boss, same as the old boss"...

I agree. This is the only credible bad mark against Cain so far imo. I think it shows a serious lack of character not to have come clean right away, not to mention extraordinarily bad judgement. Now even if he is getting bad advice, which seems obvious, I expect my president to be better than that.

[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.

[Bilge_Rat]

It may be true, it may not be true, only he knows for sure. Part of the problem may be generational, since Clinton, Clarence Thomas, Dominic Strauss Kahn, all had the same issue. They grew up in a time when a lot of behavior towards women, which would now be considered to be sexual harassment, was tolerated.

However, the larger issue for republicans is who has a better chance to beat Obama: Cain or Romney. Cain, even if he survives this, will now be carrying some heavy baggage going into the election. Yes, Clinton managed to survive this in 92, but does the GOP want to take a chance in 2012?

Obama and his advisers probably can't believe their good luck. The Republicans have a real shot in 2012, but they seem intent on picking a candidate which Obama has a good chance of beating.

Without story counts, etc, there is no data. I'm interested in actual word counts on stories

Now you sound like Glenn Beck

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

Just look at the pile of people Cain has blamed, his friends, his associates his employees, his campaigners, his party, his fellow candidates ....but for tater and Beck its obviously the "liberal media"