Having been excoriated by women for pointing out the obvious, I feel compelled to jot a few notes down. You needn't feel compelled to read them. But don't expect a polished blog post.
Cain is accused of being a sexual harasser, one of those modern crimes that in some circles are considered worse than actual physical violence resulting in serious physical injury. Cain may or may not have committed sexual harassment. I have no opinion at this time on his guilt or innocence, though from the descriptions of the alleged incidents (if true) he sounds a lot more like a clumsy wannabe adulterer than a harasser.
The sole exception to that so far are the claims of the one woman who has actually come forward and alleged an offered quid pro quo exchange of employment for sex, and frankly, I don't find her very credible and am unaware of any actual evidence other than her own word that anything untoward occured. Which leads me to ...
What I've gotten beaten up for (by liberals and especially liberal women, naturally) is pointing out that the evidence of actual sexual harassment on Cain's part being offered up was of such a thin, subjective, hearsay, and insubstantial and likely unsubstantiable nature that the media assault on him does indeed resemble a media lynching. While more evidence has come to light, it remains so far of the same nature. There's no blue dress here, no filed rape or attempted rape complaints. The best we have is one known "termination agreement" the contents of which we have not seen, that would likely contain no useful specifics if we could see it, and the recipient of which declined to named (though the media outed her) and who through her lawyer expressed zero desire to re-visit the specifics or even be named, and who has declined to make any other comment other than that lawyer's statement, which amounted to "Buzz off and leave me out of this."
My own crime is not piling on Cain as a despicable predator and cheering on the rope squad. Pointing out that the "evidence" so far offered is so flimsy as to be laughable by legal standards or even journalistic ones. Not buying that just because ANONYMOUS allegations were made does not mean there is any truth to them, or that if there is, we do not know those truths. Noting that all of the allegations, even if backed up publicly by the alleged harassed, still amount to he-said/she-said argument in which our only real standard is our personal assessments of the credibility of the claimants.
There is an apocryphal story about LBJ's campaigning in Texas in his early political years iduring the Depression. LBJ was alleged to have told his campaign chief to spread the rumor that his opponent was known to have engaged in beastiality with his barnyard animals.
"But Lyndon," the aide protested, "We can't call him a pig-fucker!" To which LBJ replied, "I don't want us to call him anything. I want to get him to deny it."
Well, they've gotten their denial, haven't they?
The principle of smearing allegations is firmly esconced in American politics. Sometimes the allegations are true. Most times they are not, or are at best horribly twisted misrepresentations of rather ordinary events. All such allegations WILL have an impact on the politico being smeared, regardless of the truth of them and the evidence or lack thereof, because voters as a whole aren't exactly rocket scientists and tend to run in lemming herds.
Something to remember as the campaigns heat up. You will hear lots of things. Try to apply some critical thinking skills and develop a minimal standard of evidence for evaluating them. It's about all that sets you apart from the lemmings.