This is sad

How does Herman Cain overcome this?


Overcome what?  An allegation?  Anybody can make an allegation about anything.  Just because someone is making an allegation about something she claims happened over 14 years ago is not some reason to go panicky and run for the hills.

Thinking through it all, if it becomes a he said, she said sort of thing, then Cain loses because too many people will buy her story. What will have to happen for Cain to win this is for someone to reveal that Bialek has a history of telling lies or for someone to reveal that she’s being paid a large sum of money to come forward.

Think about this for a minute.  Here we have a conservative side that refuse to support a strong candidate who has possibly been targeted politically and their reaction is to give in to it?

This was 14 years ago for crying out loud.  It wasn't a formal complaint.  It is his word vs her word.  Don't tell me about "patterns".  You have to prove something happened at least once, and nobody has proved anything except that they want to go after this guy.

I am not defending Herman Cain per se.  I think anybody could be put in a similar position if they are being targeted for some reason.  Cain is leading in some polls.  There are people who don't like that and want to change it.  I question the motivation of those bringing this forward.  The sad thing is that those who should be defending Cain and adding to the chorus.  This kind of thing needs to be confronted, not given in to.

It is quite another thing if Cain is guilty, but how do you determine that in this instance?

It is bad enough that the left is jumping all over this.  Conservatives should stiffen their spines a little.

Update:

Bennett: This Is Not a ‘Lynching’ of Herman Cain - By Kathryn Jean Lopez - The Corner - National Review Online

Comment:

With all due respect to Bennett and NRO, who ran this, I think that it could still be a high tech lynching.  Numbers do not impress me.  A hundred women could be making these accusations.  The number isn't relevant.

What's is relevant?  I think that it is significant that Cain is being accused of something that he cannot defend himself against legally.  The charges themselves are extralegal.   Franlky, I don't see his obligation to even to answer to this at all.   It is a loser for him no matter which way he turns.   In cases such as this, I think he should have 100% support of his party.  Instead, they are running away like so many spineless wimps.

Let's be clear about this:  it is a purely politically motivated charge.  It has no legal force.

Of course you want to have high minded professional demeanor at all times.  That possibility is disturbing.  But the charges have no legal basis.  How can Cain respond to this, but in a political way?  And how can the party respond but in a political way?

There is no hypocrisy.  Clinton was faced with a legal process.   Up to now, Cain is not.   There is no comparison.

Update:


Hopefully, this will be the last update. This has gotten me riled up.  A few things come to mind this time:

1. This is how I'd like to see conservatives respond.  They're acting like putty in Obama's hands.
2. This could be a bluff.  Getting an attorney implies a suit.  But what if it isn't?  All Cain has to do is to say that it has no legal force until it becomes a legal process.  Until that time, he has nothing to say about her accusations.  The way was paved for the others to come forward if they wanted.  They didn't.  Dare her to take it to court.
3. Less is more.  By defending himself vigorously by denials and so forth, he could open some doors.  This is all a big game.  If he is in it to win it, he has to play the game to win.  Let them prove their case.  He doesn't have to prove his innocence.