Long time, no read. Or write.
Recent claims on Herman Cain's character seem out of place. What's more they seem far beyond the level of scrutiny the press held President Obama to when he was a candidate.
Should the press pursue Mr. Cain like this? Probably. After all, what if it is true?
But Cain doesn't need to be the issue here... the issue is, as often the case, journalists in name only. The type of wretches who give a pass to and cover for Their Guy.
Now, I like Mr. Cain. A lot. But what if there is something to all this?
I remember saying to someone when these claims had no name to them, "If I were collecting material to smear someone, I'd make damn sure that whatever I started with I could follow up with something bigger... and then bigger."
I've been waiting for Sharon Bialek to speak publicly. Not specifically her, but the journalist in me (I have a history) said "There is more," and it would come soon enough.
What to do? Hope my guy can weather all this? After all, if President Clinton could get away with it, why can't *my* guy shake free?
But what if it is true? I don't want my guy to get through simply to even the score. I don't want a guy who can't be trusted.
Has our culture reached the point where this sort of thing, if it is true, isn't important to some people? Most people?
What's more, too many people have instantly gone after Sharon Bialek with venom. I've got my suspicions about her, but I don't know anything.
This whole thing smells of trouble... and someone is going through a lot of it to get this circus running through town.