Much of the discussion among my cobloggers seems to assume that the charges against Herman Cain are likely to be false. I'm not sure why. This isn't a Clarence Thomas-style he said/she said. It's a Bill Clinton-style he said/she said/she said/she said/she said.
One accusation of sexual harassment may be a lie or a misunderstanding. But four accusations? One of which resulted in a $35,000 settlement, one of which resulted in a $45,000 settlement, and one of which is backed up by two affadavits signed under penalty of perjury by people swearing that the accuser told them about the incident at the time?
Anyone who lived through the Clinton era will remember watching partisans blindly defend a politician when he was repeatedly accused of sexual impropriety. It's surreal to now see some conservatives behaving like Clintonites, complete with attacks on the motives of the accusers (gee, I can't imagine why some of the women might prefer to remain anonymous).
Apply Occam's razor. This isn't some vast conspiracy launched against Cain because he's a black conservative, with complaints planted long ago by political enemies who foresaw that he'd be a threat more than a decade later. There is a much simpler explanation: The charges are at least partially true.
Share this Article
Like this Article
Print this ArticlePrint Article