Bill Clinton, known as a serial adulterer, remans very popular and I think he could win the Presidency again if it were legal. Did I miss something? it seems like the case of Mr.
Clinton belongs in this article.

I've always been an admirer of Grover Cleveland's story. During his years practicing law, Cleveland had an affair with a Maria Halpin and took credit for an illegitimate child (who was probably someone else's). Cleveland took full responsibility for the affair when his opponents made it an issue in the 1884 Presidential election, and if anything Cleveland emerged stronger from it, having bolstered his reputation for honesty.

Personally, I don't care much about sexual indiscretions among political candidates, so long as they are not too severe in nature. I can only imagine that I would succumb to the temptation should it arise, and having witnessed the scandalmongering of the Clinton years during my youth and being knowledgeable of history, I usually assume that these sorts of episodes are far less significant than partisans make them appear.

Comments on these early responses:

I did mention Clinton in the story. His indisctiminate womanizing while Arkansas governor was well known when he became a presidential candidate and, thus, its continuance in the White House came as no surprise to voters. He got in real trouble, as it turned out, not because of his
sexual conduct but because he lied about it to a grand jury.

There are numerous stories, dating back to the founding fathers, about
the sexual conduct of various presidents including George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, Warren Harding, and Franklin Roosevelt. H.L. Mencken once wrote a famous essay concluding with this sentence: "If George Washington were alive today, he would be prosecuted under the Mann Act."

Sexual harassment falls into another category, however, in which those with power use it to bully their way to non-consensual sex with their victims. Clinton had a brush with that in the Paula Jones case. Such charges, if validated, would almost certainly be politically fatal to
a candidate whose identity still was undefined otherwise.

As long as lurid details remain absent, the Hermanator can probably weather the sexual harassment storm. The people most likely to be offended in the abstract by allegations of sexual harassment never vote in Republican primaries. In GOP circles the minor expression of a traditional male prerogative is deemed a political plus, not a minus. And as for this flap somehow being less consequential than the foreplay leading up to the November 23 deadline, one should not expect an exciting climax there. If ever there was an exercise in political teasing, it's got to be the idea that a bipartisan Congressional committee might agree on a debt reduction deal.

Where I once worked we had mandatory sexual harassment classes every year. My takeaway: sexual harassment is in the mind of the beholder. Period. If a person sends an off color email and it gets into the wrong hands in the workplace, bang, sexual harassment charges can result. If one colleague hugs another spontaneously over a promotion, for example, bang, sexual harassment can be charged if the huggee objects. There were no hard and fast standards so we were told not to touch each other, not to invade personal spaces, and not to tell any jokes.

When I lived in Korea I used to watch Koreans walking in clumps, men hand in hand with men and women with women. Very close together. Their idea of personal space was different than mine. The same was true of the Hispanic students in my Texas high school. They touched each other frequently and walked together hip to hip, in constant physical contact with their close friends. That wasn't true of the Anglo kids like me.

We live in a country that honors and values diverse cultures, philosophies, and peoples. That diversity can sometimes lead to misunderstandings and those misunderstandings can sometimes lead to charges of harassment.

I don't know the particulars of the charges against Mr. Cain. He may have used his position to harass underlings. He may have told off color jokes. Both can be considered sexual harassment depending on the persons involved and the way the lawyers and human resource people size up the situation and the deep pockets available.

We've given Bill Clinton and Newt Gingrich passes for having workplace affairs with underlings. The only reason those affairs were not considered sexual harassment is the women involved didn't bring charges of harassment against either man. It's not the behavior that determines sexual harassment, it's whether underlings decide to bring harassment charges - sometimes a long time after the fact - that can separate harassment from nonharassment.

Given our history and the breadth of possible activity and motivations involved, maybe we should avoid rushing to judge Mr. Cain unless and until we learn what he actually did and what he actually did was an abuse of power and not a misunderstanding.

I'm no fan of Herman Cain, but this anonymously sourced Politico story is the kind of thing that can destroy someone's career and reputation. Unless you've got people coming forward and giving specifics and being willing to be questioned, or at least solid documents that are publicly available, I frankly don't think this should be reported. This may or may not turn out to be solid, but sexual harassment charges are easy to make and hard to prove. They leave a stain that can't be erased. I think this is irresponsible journalism. You publish this kind of story when you can deliver the goods and produce a story that can be verified. Plus, TVD's broad statements about sex and politics don't seem to have much to do with the reported "facts" of the Cain situation.

Herman Cain predicted that he might be the target of a "high-tech lynching." Let's hope that the public's revulsion at such smear tactics makes the Politico hit-piece the last burning cross on Mr. Cain's path.

There was a whole hour done on this story this morning on "The Diane Rehm Show." One of the panelists was a reporter from The Politico, which broke the story. He said several times that he "could not [meaning would not] confirm or deny" that their original tip came from a political opponent of Cain. He also repeatedly characterized the motivation of their investigation as "a tip" because it was made by someone with no first-hand knowledge of the events and therefore that person could not be regarded as a "source".

Is it too extreme to suggest that the planting of such a story is indicative of either Texas or Chicago political ethics? I'm just asking...

Thank you, Harris. How stories like this get airtime is the scandal.

Let's put the merit of the original accusations aside for a moment and just look at the complete botch Cain and his people have made of it. Why were they surprised that someone would dig up something like this, even if it was twenty years ago? As Ted pointed out, President Clinton really got into trouble by lying about what he'd done...not becuase of the acts themselves. Cain has made that same mistake...his stories seem to change by the hour...and he's not a strong enough political force to withstand such a mess. Anthony Weiner recently made the same series of mistakes...furious denial and then a later admission of "guilt." By contrast, both David Vitter and Barney Frank pretty much admitted what they had done, and both were then able to move on and be re-elected.

If this is just "eyes of the beholder" (crankyoldlady) or "easy to make and hard to prove" (Harris Meyer), then why the gag order on the victims in the settlements? And why make settlements with accusations that are just perception or hard to prove? Why not start by believing the victims? Why think they have self-interest but Cain doesn't?

The history of males with political power and their sense of privilege is suggestive (you all have left out Hart, Spitzer, and others http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_federal_political_sex_scandals_in_the_United_States ). And don't forget Brock Adams, Mike Lowry . . . who am I leaving out?).

Get real. The guy is worse that a certifiable idiot--he's a certifiable idiot with power.

dbreneman: Whether or not the tip came from a rival campaign doesn't take away from the FACTS of the story. There was IN FACT a settlement paid. The complete story cannot be told because of that settlement. Basically, Cain and the NRA paid off his victims to keep the story quiet.

Talking about motive is just an attempt to distract attention from the truth.

As for crankyoldlady: The 1970s are long gone. Most workers today know exactly what constitutes sexual harassment. It's not that hard.

An entity styled as "bigyaz" writes: "Talking about motive is just an attempt to distract attention from the truth."

It's nothing of the sort. The motive is part of the story. There have been instances in the past of the Perry and Obama campaigns cooperating to uncover dirt on Romney. They may well be doing the same in regards to Cain, too. Clearly, the president is unnerved by some of these challengers, and that's part of the story, as well. As for "FACTS", so far there are precious few associated with this story other than a report that something happened which was characterized as sexual harassment. I'm waiting for the facts.

Cain is toast. He's a man without a plan, or a clue. His 9-9-9 plan is a disaster. And today a third woman has appeared. It would be one thing if he admitted it, "I did it. I was wrong. I won't ever do it again." But that doesn't appear to be the game plan.

Several days later, it seems clear that the story is still unfolding.
New reports of sexual harassment by Cain have surfaced. No one knows if they are true or false. The two women involved in the original charges have refused to speak publicly but reporters have their homes staked out.
The National Restaurant Association is considering how to respond to one of the women's attorneys who has requested that the NRA issue a clarifying statement regarding the matter.

Cain's poll ratings are holding up and financial contributions have flowed in from supporters rising to his defense. His own and his staff's responses over the past several days, however, have cast doubt on his and their credibility. Conflicting and evolving explanations, and unsupported charges that Texas Gov. Rick Perry's campaign was smearing Cain, have made them seem both unprofessional and devious. Most of us, I suspect, were surprised to learn that Cain had some 10 days' advance notice that Politico was pursuing the story but, yet, was totally unprepared to address it when it surfaced.

Cain has been hurt politically. So has Perry, his principal competitor for conservative votes in the GOP presidential-nominating process. Perry may or may not be the source of the reports about Cain. But the whole
to-and-fro has brought new scrutiny on himself. Some who saw and heard
a recent Perry speech in New Hampshire alleged that he was intoxicated.

The big political winners have been President Obama and former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney, the GOP moderate standardbearer, who has seen his principal conservative challengers diminish themselves.

The whole business is sad and tawdry. Ordinary citizens no doubt have had their confidence in both politicians and the media further reduced.

I personally have had my confidence in conventional Beltway political reporting and punditry like this reduced to historically unprecedented low levels.

@kieth Agreed, except for Mr. Clinton has - and had - a governing record to fall back on that looks extremely good these days, the last time the feds have balanced their budget (previous to that was 1969 with Richard Nixon). He’s also not a Republican, who regularly tout their pure credentials, setting their bar that much higher.

Even considering another woman has publicly spoken out now about her alleged experience with Cain, I doubt if his supporters will abandon him. In fact, they'll just see him as martyr to the liberal press (which he has encouraged today). Unfortunately, the Republican leaders probably won't nominate him because they know he's a loose cannon, and their followers will have to vote for Romney, who has a better chance with independents than Obama (who the liberals will have to vote for). Thus, the liberals and the Tea Partiers will be trapped, and the independents will probably win the day for the Republicans.

If only the Dems could get Cain nominated.