Herman Cain, Sharon Bialek, and her Accusations
If I was going to grade Herman Cain's response to his accuser's allegations on a scale of 1 to 10, I would give him a 9. He came across very strong in his press conference today. But for a quick recap, let's review the key statements so far.
Sharon Bialek says, "He suddenly reached over... put his hand on my leg, under my skirt, and toward my genitals." She then says that Cain added, "You want the job, right?"
Herman Cain spoke today in a press conference and stated with confidence that Bialek is lying. Three times he said, "I have never been inappropriate with a woman." I do find it interesting that in his language he repeatedly "rejects these claims." For better or worse, the words reject and deny are two different words in my book. I reject gas prices, but they are what they are. But seriously, I knew lots of people in college that viewed their actions as appropriate, when many would easily argue the same actions inappropriate. The choice of words was to grey for the subject at hand.
Still, at this point I error on the side of his innocence. There are just a few things I would have had him say had I been on his team.
At length, Cain described how he and his team watched the allegations on TV "over and over, over and over, and over and over." During that time he says, "I tried to remember, if I recognize her, and I didn't. I tried to remember if I remembered that name, and I didn't."
Now wait a minute. You mean to tell me a woman has come forward and accused him of putting his hand on her leg, up her skirt and then some... and he his racking his brain trying to think, do I know this woman? Have a seen this woman? Do I recognize her? Do I recognize her name?" Really?!
Let me say this. If you're a guy, and you were in a car, and you've been married for 30 years, and you put your hand up another woman's skirt where Sharon says you did.... you're going to remember that. So his thoughts racing to, "do I recognize her" and "do I remember that name" is really something else. Certainly any man, including Cain, can think to himself, "I either did, or did not sit in a car with a woman that I was not married to, and put my hand up her skirt." That either happened, or it didn't. Who cares if you recognize the woman? Who cares if you remember her name? It's the primary allegation that needs refuting.
Why couldn't he have just said, "This claim of me sitting in a car with this woman and putting my hand up her skirt is the dumbest thing I've heard since Obamacare. That never happened. I don't know this woman, and I'm pretty sure I've never even seen her in my life."
It's a tough call to judge at this point. I do think he came off real strong in his press conference, much stronger than I expected. What he said and the certainty in which he said it were very compelling. His strength in answering the reporter's questions was exceptionally strong. But still, at its core, I think he must emphatically deny the actions that he has been accused of. That has to be in addition to him not recognizing her. Without doing that, he isn't slamming the case shut. He's closed the door, but there's still a draft coming in, and it doesn't smell quite right.
What do you think?