“Surreal” is the term that most readily comes to mind as I observe the phenomenon of sexual harassment allegations raised against Republican candidate Herman Cain. As observers processed Monday’s press conference (in which Sharon Bialek and attorney Gloria Allred introduced a disgusting account of Cain’s alleged 1997 attack on the former), federal employee Karen Kraushaar identified herself as No. 2 (or 3 or 4, depending on whom you talk to), calling for a press conference with all the women whom Cain allegedly harassed.

“Surreal” because of the juxtaposition of this scenario against those of past seekers of positions of power facing similar circumstances – accusations of inappropriate sexual conduct – but whose overall treatment was quite different than that which Cain is receiving.

Is Cain’s guilt or innocence relevant? Of course it is. And I am not here to proclaim his innocence. But as it stands, Herman Cain’s status as a serial sexual harasser isn’t predicated upon what Sharon Bialek or Karen Kraushaar or the network television news mannequins have to say.

A crestfallen confession on the part of the candidate notwithstanding, the vigor and eagerness with which the press dived into this fray and the relish they are having in their attempts to dismantle Cain have no precedent.

Cain is convinced he’s still in the running, despite the two women who’ve gone public with allegations of sexual harassment against him. …

– Bill Weir, ABC News, Nov. 8

It’s been established that the press has no shame with regard to their political bias; the peremptory rhetoric of this talking hairdo is not only indicative of that bias, but the imperative the press has in torpedoing Cain’s candidacy.

Allegations of homosexual trysts and hard drug use on the part of Barack Obama – among many, many other issues – were ignored by the press during the 2008 campaign. When Bill Clinton ran for president in 1992, women immediately began coming out of the woodwork. When Clinton, as president, was caught in a sloppy liaison with the porcine Monica Lewinsky, the real problem he had was getting caught lying about it. To this day, his legacy of randy behavior is still more of an amusing anecdote than an embarrassment to him, and much of this has to do with the press coverage it received.

Am I suggesting that all of the women lining up to testify to Herman Cain’s lechery have agreed to be party to slandering him for reasons of politics or money?

I contend that we have entered into a realm in which considering a conspiracy of such magnitude is not at all outlandish. As I have said in recent weeks, the methods and the madness of those vying for political pre-eminence have reached a new plateau of ruthlessness, outrageousness and contemptibility. Would-be conspirators would be aware that a scandal calculated to derail Cain’s candidacy would have to be big – bigger than Clarence Thomas and Anita Hill, bigger than Bill Clinton and Paula Jones. Barring Cain being caught in the act of molestation, the first best course would be to paint him as the worst kind of scum. We must bear in mind that the job of such people would not be to prove unequivocally that Herman Cain is a groper; just to make his position as a viable candidate untenable, to make things just ugly enough to necessitate his withdrawal.

That sort of thing of black sexuality… predatory black sexuality. Very frightening in this country, still. Very threatening. It’s very jarring for the GOP, for anybody, I think, to see a black man be sexually aggressive in an unwanted way toward a blonde, white – especially a blonde, white woman.

– NBC commentator Touré

While this was far from the only instance of such commentary, the vapid, catty quips offered by lightweight hack Touré (apparently the left’s answer to Napoleon Dynamite) epitomizes the tack Cain’s detractors are taking. It’s manifestly racist, but this is acceptable, since Cain is a conservative. While reinforcing the perception of whites’ undying fear of black sexuality, this Touré simultaneously condemned Cain for behaving in a sexually predatory (read typically black) manner. I guess he’s nothing if not efficient; the point is that the narrative of the left is very much in line with that of accuser Sharon Bialek; this archetypal depiction of the “sex-crazed black buck” on the prowl for white women is right out of a Klan rally.

What makes all of this plausible is what makes Herman Cain more of a threat than the other GOP contenders: He could win. So, neither the Obama administration, the Democrat National Committee, nor the liberal GOP leadership wants him to secure the Republican nomination. Blacks would vote for him. The guilted white fools who voted for Obama would vote for him. Conservatives would vote for him. Evangelical Christians would vote for him. Is there anyone left?

Sure there is. But you get the picture: With Cain versus Obama, it’s Cain in a landslide.

Note: Read our discussion guidelines before commenting.