I wasn't paying close attention at the time either but anything you ever wanted to know about the ordeal is a few mouse clicks away.
Why would I want to know about it NOW? If we're comparing the private behavior of past presidents, there's a few with an R after their name that 'fooled around', too. My point is we should stick to the man in question, because that's what matters NOW.
Clinton
was accused of criminal behavior, dating
back to the 70's. Of course we all know that this
wasn't the only woman that accused him.
You may not believe that Clinton was guilty of any criminal behavior with Lewinsky but we need to remember a couple of things. She was very young and I'm going to assume, easy to intimidate. Maybe she
was a willing partner but if this were one of your own daughters wouldn't you at least think that he used his position for his own sexual gain?
Maybe another example would be John Edwards and how the MSM wouldn't touch that story for the longest time. They don't have that same reluctance when it comes to conservatives.
Again: water under the bridge. Irrelevant. A distraction from the topic. [Would also be true if the topic were on the other foot, so to speak.]
Mr. Cain was accused and yet that seems to be the only thing we really know about this incident. Even the attorney for the woman said it wasn't touching, it was gestures, just as Mr. Cain said.
As I said from the start: there's enough 'smoke' to require some answers from the candidate, so we can see how he handles it, and decide how we feel about that. What I've seen is arrogant and ugly - that's how I feel.
Now, I'm not trying to say I believe he's totally innocent, what I am saying is, even after finding out what we did about Clinton, it didn't keep him out of the white house. Why should these accusations keep Cain out of running for the white house? So far no one has brought anything to light that proves anything. Many are questioning whether or not this should have been reported
unless and until there's more to go on than "anonymous" sources.
Where do you get that he's refused to respond to questions? He's done nothing else for almost a week and then yesterday he began to refuse. What if he has nothing else to tell, nothing else to say on the subject? How long should one let these reporters go on asking the same things and getting the same answers? I mean, when does one put their foot down and say enough?
During the first week, when he was answering questions, the answers kept changing, is why it kept going. Only after he changed his 'explanation' several times did he suddenly say he would answer no more - very bad move, that one.
The woman's attorney has said that she refuses to speak on the story, doesn't that make it look a little "fishy" to you?
Fishy? You've never seen or heard of victims of rape, assault, abuse, being treated like they 'deserved' it?! I understand her refusal perfectly well. [I don't say she was perfectly honest, or that Cain actually did what she accused him of doing, but I understand why she won't put her name out there now, either way.]
The association has said that Cain did not sign the "agreement", what does that mean to you?
That he's a "very busy and important man who has people to take care of things like that"?
Jeez, I don't know - I have no idea whether that's a standard procedure, or what - do you? In the one statement, he said he turned it over to his attorneys and let them deal with it.
All of this tells me that the story shouldn't have been written to begin with, there just wasn't enough proof of anything concrete but now that it's done, no one knows what to do with it.
