Day three of Herman Cain’s trial by innuendo. The New York Times provides a summary of Cain’s statements yesterday, concluding that “his explanations evolved during a day in which conservative supporters rallied against what they called an unfair attack from the news media.” Cain’s responses did change as Monday passed by, but that could simply reflect additional information flowing into his inner circle.
Powerline’s John Hinderaker reviews why conservatives at least will at worst suspend judgment about Herman Cain: We have seen this movie before, and most of us think that Anita Hill lied and that Justice Thomas was wrongfully pilloried for political reasons in the most outrageous Beltway carnival of our adult lives. We thus aren’t eager to give even a touch of credibility to charges like these from 20 years ago, but we also know how Justice Thomas reacted: With an angry and complete denial, and a prolonged and painful appearance before the Senate Judiciary Committee.
There isn’t any committee from which Herman Cain can demand a hearing, but he can and probably should pick one of the big MSMers and sit down for a focused interview on the subject, fully prepared to knock down the allegations, get all of his recollections out on the table, and then leave it to the public to judge him fairly.
As for Politico, it needs to empty its cupboards of all allegations now rather than milk an episode for web traffic. Today’s top story of about a dozen on the topic reviews the inconsistencies in the Cain narrative yesterday, but editor John Harris owes the public a review of his team’s work and an assurance to readers that this story isn’t being fed out bit by bit to keep the unique visitors coming. If there are other parts of the story that Politico intends to ever publish, it should do so now. If that’s all they have, that should be declared as well.