Herman and Clarence

As the Herman Cain sexual harassment scandal continues to percolate, I keep hearing it compared to the Clarence Thomas- Anita Hill brouhaha 20 years ago, and there are lots of similarities.  Black conservatives, with questionable qualifications, dealing with old allegations of sexual improprieties and blaming the liberal media.

Of course the liberal media did spend a little time picking at the various indiscretions of Bill Clinton, but that doesn't seep into the conservative imagination, as it impedes their narrative.

But I find myself saying the same thing about Herman Cain that I said about Clarence Thomas many years ago: don't reject him because of sexual harassment allegations that can't be proven either way; just reject him because he's unqualified for the position for which he's being considered!  We didn't need a sex scandal to know that Thomas's resume was very thin and very undistinguished when he was nominated- a Democratic Senate could have rejected him based on that (Lord knows a Republican Senate now would never allow a Supreme Court nominee who is that radical on the other side to be confirmed these days).  Similarly, Herman Cain is a clown, with no knowledge of most of the things government does.  He's funny and entertaining, but he'd be a terrible president.   That's all we need to know.

Of course Cain is also probably a serial sexual harasser of women.  As was Bill Clinton.  JFK famously demanded a new woman every day to relieve his urges while in office.  These guys are all narcissistic megalomaniacs- I think those traits are probably necessary to put up with everything that politicians have to put up with.  So no surprise to see Herman Cain in the same light, not because he's Black or conservative, but because he loves being the center of attention- just like everyone running for president.