In the next few days and weeks we’re gonna find out more about Herman Cain than we ever wanted to know. I have no idea how this will turn out. Actually I have several ideas but I don’t know which one will turn out to be correct.
But let’s start by taking a closer look at what he is accused of:
During Herman Cain’s tenure as the head of the National Restaurant Association in the 1990s, at least two female employees complained to colleagues and senior association officials about inappropriate behavior by Cain, ultimately leaving their jobs at the trade group, multiple sources confirm to POLITICO.
The women complained of sexually suggestive behavior by Cain that made them angry and uncomfortable, the sources said, and they signed agreements with the restaurant group that gave them financial payouts to leave the association. The agreements also included language that bars the women from talking about their departures.
[…]
The sources — which include the recollections of close associates and other documentation — describe episodes that left the women upset and offended. These incidents include conversations allegedly filled with innuendo or personal questions of a sexually suggestive nature, taking place at hotels during conferences, at other officially sanctioned restaurant association events and at the association’s offices. There were also descriptions of physical gestures that were not overtly sexual but that made women who experienced or witnessed them uncomfortable and that they regarded as improper in a professional relationship.
First let’s parse some language:
“at least two female employees”
There are two women involved. If Politico knew about more than two they would have said so. But were these two completely separate cases or one case involving two women?
“multiple sources”
More than one. Possibly as few as two.
“ultimately leaving their jobs . . . gave them financial payouts to leave the association”
Read that carefully. It DOES NOT say they quit because they were sexually harassed or that they were paid to settle claims of sexual harassment.
“The sources — which include the recollections of close associates and other documentation”
That doesn’t say the sources had direct knowledge. Is it two friends and a note?
Now here’s the key part:
These incidents include conversations allegedly filled with innuendo or personal questions of a sexually suggestive nature, taking place at hotels during conferences, at other officially sanctioned restaurant association events and at the association’s offices. There were also descriptions of physical gestures that were not overtly sexual but that made women who experienced or witnessed them uncomfortable and that they regarded as improper in a professional relationship.
No groping, no sex, no unwanted sexual advances, no “quid pro quo.” That means we’re talking about “hostile work environment.”
In order to win a HWE case a plaintiff must show “that the harassment affected a term, condition, or privilege of employment in that it was sufficiently severe or pervasive to alter the condition of the victim’s employment and create an abusive working environment”. The standard would be that of a reasonable person of the same sex. Cases like that are tough to win.
Without more specifics we could speculate endlessly about what Cain might have said or done. Just because the women were “upset and offended” does not mean their reactions were reasonable.
Last but not least:
There were also descriptions of physical gestures that were not overtly sexual but that made women who experienced or witnessed them uncomfortable and that they regarded as improper in a professional relationship.
What the fuck does that mean? Ball scratching?
Seriously, can someone give me an example?
The Crawdad Hole 
At least now we finally have something besides smelly hippies to talk about.
I thank Herman Cain.
Though for different reasons, women working at the current WH complained of a hostile work environment. I guess that if Cain were to become president, the work environment for women at the WH would not improve.
And you base that on what?
Some vague allegations that are over a decade old?
Politico is lowering the question down to an open ended “have you ever been accused” of sexual harassment. That makes it a fishing expedition. RIght now, we have two women who complained to “senior association officials,” which would be the case since Cain was the president of the association and there would be no one higher up than the executive board.
I don’t read that they “accused” him of anything. I see “complained” a couple of times. For all we know, they could have filed a complaint, made everyone take a sexual harassment seminar and let the thing drop. Being “angry,” “upset” or “offended” does not put the other person in the wrong.
If you want wild speculation, I could say those women didn’t like blakc men as superiors and found them to be oversexed.
People “complain” about all kinds of weird stuff in the work place. It often comes from their own issues rather than from what someone else has or has not done. Men AND women can be uncomfortable around another person because they are attracted to them but know it is inappropriate (or think it is for some strange or ignorant reason). They can also fixate on another employee and find everything they do offensive or as some kind of personal affront. And you have employees that enjoy offending people or “getting their goat” and distracting them. This sounds like one of those issues where the employees were allowed to vent, then blew off the complaint after giving them a hearing and forgot about it. Bringing it up now shows that Obama is afraid of him and will try to knock Cain out now. If they cannot make a specific credible complaint, they will look petty. Tucking in his shirt or scratching his butt is not going to cut it.
The whole thing sounds made up to me.
Maybe he farted.
Or worse, maybe they farted and he laughed and waved his hand around his nose.
Whoa! I was just watching MSNBC blathering on about how it isn’t the media, but that two women were “targeting him.”
Here’s the thing. There is nothing I can see in this article that says Politico even TALKED to these women. I’m wondering if someone with the association leaked this to Obama/Romney/Politico who ran with it. If that’s the case, this whole story is even less substantial.
Oh yeah. They need to figure out who they gave it too, why, were they paid or promised anything, then go after them as being paid, nuts, or political allies trying to smear. Or all three. I still think it has Obama written all over it. Think of that guy running against him for Senate that had his closed divorce records released. Same thing.
Yes it is. And I can easily see Plouffe and Axelrod, feeling desperate, running around digging up as much as they can find. It’s how they roll.
I have no doubt they knew about John Edwards, and used that info to gain his endorsement, then dumped him. For the Obama crowd, the end justifies the means. No question.
If you were the owner of a big corporation, who would you hire as your CEO ? Obama or Cain?
I rest my case 😀
So far the vagueness of it sounds boooring to me.
No love child or wife cheated on/divorced while on deathbed?
They will have to embellish it more.
I agree, so lame.
Where’s the sex tape?
From Breitbart’s site, a year ago, some info on Jonathan Martin’s sleazy reporting history…..
http://bigjournalism.com/pjsalvatore/2010/10/25/when-will-politicos-jonathan-martin-acknowledge-his-lie/
So someone tried to pin Politico down, and they won’t say what the accusation is:
Wonderful. Because the only thing in the story is there were some NOT overtly sexual gestures, and some unnamed someone feeling uncomfortable. If they had more than that, they’d at least allude to it.
They know what the details are. If they were damaging, they’d release them. The fact that they don’t WANT the details known means that details would not help them, but instead would reveal this to be a laughable nothingburger.
http://www.newsbusters.org/blogs/mark-finkelstein/2011/10/31/politicos-martin-dodges-question-cain-details#ixzz1cMjG4J76
“There were also descriptions of physical gestures that were not overtly sexual but that made women who experienced or witnessed them uncomfortable and that they regarded as improper in a professional relationship.”
I’m going with he flipped someone off.
That causes the dual reaction of making someone mad, AND it’s not overtly sexual in nature, but the meaning has the understood ‘fuck’ in it.
Cain on Fox just now claimed he’s only aware of being falsely accused of sexual harrassment in the ’90’s and wasn’t aware of any settlement.
Hmmmm?
I also think if he survives this and his poll numbers don’t take a hit, this helps him become more teflon for the next hit job.
Larry Sabato just tweeted:
Cain did well on FOX. Either the women surface for personal interviews or Cain has survived with little damage.
The hit men may have done Cain a favor in the long run… NOW what are they going to say about him?…
“He’s black!”
“He’s Black!”
OMG, he is. Well, that will never work.
Expect operatives of both parties to run with this and others, made up or not. Neither party wants him. And the media doesn’t want him. There aren’t many like big dawg that can run that gauntlet.