home

Herman Cain: Witnesses Saw Him Talking to Sharon Bialek

Herman Cain yesterday said he doesn't recognize Sharon Bialek or know her. But Bialak and witnesses say differently, since a month ago at a function, Bialak was seen approaching him, hugging him and talking to him. One of the witnesses is WIND radio co-host Amy Jacobson.

< Al-Nashiri Hearing at Guantanamo: What Happens If He's Acquitted? | New Book on Schapelle Corby : Another Smear Campaign? >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


  • Display: Sort:
    Now THIS has to sink Cain. (5.00 / 1) (#1)
    by observed on Wed Nov 09, 2011 at 10:45:48 AM EST
    Honestly, I don't really care much about the accusations---because his politics are more loathsome to me than any personal bad habits.

    Okay - here's the thing: (5.00 / 2) (#4)
    by Anne on Wed Nov 09, 2011 at 11:22:48 AM EST
    Whether Sharon Bialek was holding Cain by the elbow and talking to him (her version) or hugging and talking almost flirtatiously with Cain (version of Amy Jacobson, radio personality with station hosting TP Convention), the one essential truth is: a month before Cain says he didn't know who Bialek was, didn't recognize her, etc., he had some kind of conversation with her.

    From his ever-changing positions on a host of issues to the growing number of women who claim to have been treated inappropriately, to his inability to tell the truth about a recent encounter, Herman Cain just keeps providing more and more evidence why he cannot and should not be taken seriously as a candidate for elective office.

    Whether people buy the books he will inevitably write, or give him radio or TV airtime, or pay him to give motivational speeches, is up to those who think this man has anything worth saying or reading that's worth paying for.

    Republicans who can't do better than the current field will ensure that Cain rides this clown car all the way to the bank.

    Ugh.


    He is a fantastic liar (5.00 / 1) (#6)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Nov 09, 2011 at 11:52:29 AM EST
    Perhaps there is a future job for him other than President, a role on  'Homeland'.  Can he beat the poly too?  The stuff just rolls off his tongue, the exact same way the stuff did the day before and the day before that.  Either he's fantastic liar, or I have never witnessed him telling the truth :)

    Parent
    Perhaps Mitt Romney will tap him for (5.00 / 0) (#11)
    by oculus on Wed Nov 09, 2011 at 12:16:20 PM EST
    Press Secretary.

    Parent
    " Can he beat the poly too?" (none / 0) (#44)
    by Amiss on Wed Nov 09, 2011 at 03:25:25 PM EST
    Anyone can beat a poly.

    Parent
    women also lie (2.00 / 1) (#69)
    by loveed on Wed Nov 09, 2011 at 05:12:58 PM EST
     I don't believe her. I didn't believe her from the beginning (Gloria).
     This meeting was before this story broke. She lied in her first press conferance.
     Her story makes no sense to me. Her boyfriend send her to meet him. He upgrades her hotel room. There basically on a date. Dinner and drinks. Her story keeps changing.When she said stop he did..  
     Sexual harassment on the job or off, is nothing to play with. I've been harassed several times.
     I also work predominantly with women. Some women will do and say anything for money. These women are the main reason why harassment is taken so lightly.

     I know there other women. I will be waiting to hear there story. After all there are two sides.

    Parent

    What?!? (5.00 / 2) (#81)
    by Yman on Wed Nov 09, 2011 at 07:22:51 PM EST
    When did she "lie" in her press conference?  Her boyfriend didn't "send" her - he suggested she meet with Cain because Cain held her in high regard.  Moreover, Cain was the head of the NRA and (presumably) could get her job back or help her in finding a new one.

    "Basically on a date"?  She already said she was surprised to find out it was Cain who upgraded her room.  Having a drink and going to dinner with work colleagues (even members of the opposite sex) is a very common practice.  My wife would be surprised to hear I've "been on a date" with colleagues several dozen (hundred?) times during our marriage.  So would I.

    Parent

    loveed is not a troll (none / 0) (#78)
    by The Addams Family on Wed Nov 09, 2011 at 06:44:03 PM EST
    she is a thoughtful commenter stating her opinion

    her opinion as such does not deserve 2 "troll" ratings . . . in my opinion

    Parent

    Opinions are fine (5.00 / 1) (#86)
    by Towanda on Wed Nov 09, 2011 at 07:52:33 PM EST
    but misstating so many facts is not, and doing so to the extent above with such a malicious comment is more than suspect.

    I'm not bothering to rate such blather at all, by the way, but I certainly also will not bother reading any more from commenters who so misstate the facts -- or those who keep company with them.  

    Parent

    I've undone those ratings (none / 0) (#87)
    by Jeralyn on Wed Nov 09, 2011 at 08:03:04 PM EST
    If you disagree with a commenter, you can give them a 2 but not a 1. "1"'s are for trolls and site violators only.

    Parent
    This is appalling (none / 0) (#85)
    by Towanda on Wed Nov 09, 2011 at 07:48:51 PM EST
    as if you are going to make some judgments, at least work from the facts.  You are the one who makes no sense.

    For one, "Gloria" is the lawyer. And you follow that flub with your own lies about what was reported.  

    Parent

    there is no evidence she lied (none / 0) (#88)
    by Jeralyn on Wed Nov 09, 2011 at 08:04:31 PM EST
    Loveed, please choose your words more carefully and avoid misstating your opinions as fact.

    Parent
    Sadly (none / 0) (#18)
    by smott on Wed Nov 09, 2011 at 12:50:26 PM EST
    It didn't stop Ah-nold the Gropinator

    Parent
    Not so fast (none / 0) (#83)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed Nov 09, 2011 at 07:41:24 PM EST
    I can personally say that I have attended many conventions, just as Cain was at a convention, where I met people that I would have absolutely no recollection of meeting later.

    Too many faces over too little time.

    I would guess that Cain has met thousands over the past months. It is perfectly believable by reasonable people that he would no remember her.

    Parent

    Godfather Pizza Sales plummet during Cain's Tenure (5.00 / 1) (#7)
    by Mr Natural on Wed Nov 09, 2011 at 11:58:07 AM EST
    About time someone vrought that up since (5.00 / 1) (#10)
    by ruffian on Wed Nov 09, 2011 at 12:11:22 PM EST
    his sole claim for his advantage as a candidate is his business acumen.

    Can we stick a fork in his candidacy yet? Soon, probably, since he uttered the always fatal "I will not quit" words. Always followed closely by quitting.

    Parent

    I think you being reduced to calling Anne (5.00 / 2) (#46)
    by Amiss on Wed Nov 09, 2011 at 03:35:57 PM EST
    a "moron" shows absolutely without a doubt that you look for things to nit-pick whereas Anne looks for facts.

    You really should stop saying things like this and take a really really long look in a mirror to see what makes a moron a moron.

    As far as I am concerned, you are a site violator, reduced to calling others names is something that Jeralyn does not look favorably upon and you owe Anne a huge apology at the very least.

    He called me a moron because he (5.00 / 2) (#48)
    by Anne on Wed Nov 09, 2011 at 03:52:09 PM EST
    thinks I called him one; saying that "only a moron" wouldn't understand that he was specifically discussing Cain and not some generic universe of bad behavior was a comment on what the reader would have to be, and spoke to his low opinion of the reader's intelligence.

    I'm used to his difficulties with reading comprehension; it's something he kind of has to do to have the arguments he wants, rather than the one under discussion.

    Calling me "slightly insane," though, while clearly a violation of commenting rules, says more about ABG than it does about me.

    And the "a-hole commenter" slam against someone else in another comment was also taking it too far; if he had more to offer he wouldn't need to resort to outright name-calling.


    Parent

    Well your conclusion was absolutely correct (5.00 / 1) (#59)
    by sj on Wed Nov 09, 2011 at 05:00:27 PM EST
    He called me a moron because he
    .
    .
    .
    thinks I called him one

    Which he confirms below.  Also confirms your observation vis a vis reading comprehension as his comment was made well after this one...

    Parent
    I deleted that comment (5.00 / 1) (#90)
    by Jeralyn on Wed Nov 09, 2011 at 08:09:13 PM EST
    ABG, you may not call people names here. Period.

    Parent
    Fair Enough Jeralyn (none / 0) (#101)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Thu Nov 10, 2011 at 08:28:17 AM EST
    As long as those are everyone's rules, that's cool.

    Parent
    Except (1.00 / 0) (#54)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Wed Nov 09, 2011 at 04:52:49 PM EST
    I called Anne a moron only because she called me one first.

    As I have said, people don't necessarily evaluate those who express contrarian views fairly around this place.

    If they did, you wouldn't have completely skipped over the fact that she started the name calling.

    Parent

    I don't think lying (3.00 / 2) (#8)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Wed Nov 09, 2011 at 11:58:38 AM EST
    about affairs is a conservative or progressive thing.  It's a "oh sh*t I messed up and need to avoid the consequences" thing.

    I wish that the scandal would break more slowly, every week that this drags out, the worse the GOP is going to do with women given some of the comments on this.

    I wish the accusers would slow their information releases a bit and let us bask in the unfortunate statements of the GOP.

    We all know Cain is not going to be the nominee, so this is all irrelevant anyway.

    I'd prefer that it hadn't broken at all.. (5.00 / 0) (#9)
    by Mr Natural on Wed Nov 09, 2011 at 12:10:54 PM EST
    A Cain Candidacy would have made next November's vote the mother of all cognitive dissonance meltdowns for right wing troglodytes, pitting their urge to be used and exploited by an angry right wing father figure against their long cultivated racism.

    Parent
    The Perry supporter who sd. Romney (none / 0) (#12)
    by oculus on Wed Nov 09, 2011 at 12:18:47 PM EST
    isn't Christian but sd. he'd vote for Romney over Obama:  wonder how he feels about Cain over Obama.  A conundrum.  

    Parent
    As long as your hate is justified, I guess (none / 0) (#89)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Wed Nov 09, 2011 at 08:06:13 PM EST
    it's all good.

    Parent
    Who are you addressing? (none / 0) (#91)
    by Mr Natural on Wed Nov 09, 2011 at 08:32:36 PM EST
    The issue with Cain isn't about (5.00 / 9) (#13)
    by Anne on Wed Nov 09, 2011 at 12:25:18 PM EST
    alleged "affairs," but about "sexual harassment;" they are not even close to being the same thing.

    An affair connotes consent, and is about cheating on one's spouse, while sexual harassment is about using one's position of authority and influence to treat women inappropriately.

    Both undoubtedly involve lying, and neither having affairs nor harassing women are hallmarks of exemplary behavior from someone seeking the votes and trust of the American people, but please - don't lump the behavior together under the heading of "affairs."

    Geez, at this rate, we are never going to get all the way out of the cave.

    Parent

    Anne (none / 0) (#14)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Wed Nov 09, 2011 at 12:36:14 PM EST
    Obviously the sexual harassment aspect is the big issue. That really wasn't the point.  I used "affair" as a short hand for the whole sordid thing, both the attempted cheating and the harassment.

    Parent
    yes (5.00 / 5) (#15)
    by The Addams Family on Wed Nov 09, 2011 at 12:38:56 PM EST
    I used "affair" as a short hand for the whole sordid thing, both the attempted cheating and the harassment.

    that is the issue that Anne was pointing out

    Parent

    OK. She can win. (2.00 / 1) (#19)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Wed Nov 09, 2011 at 12:58:36 PM EST
    I used to affairs because two of the biggest sex scandals of the last decade or so have involved affairs by democrats, the point being the slimeball-ism is a bipartisan disease.

    But by all means. Please replace "affairs" in the one place that it shows up in my comment with "affairs and sexual harassment allegations".

    That has nothing to do with the point and nowhere was I implying that cheating was better or worse than the sexual harassment (which I acknowledged by using "accusers" instead of "mistress" or "adultres" but I'll gladly amend the statement to satisfy  . . . well whatever it is that makes people nitpick about stuff they know really isn't at issue among those here.


    Parent

    I don't know why you keep thinking you (5.00 / 3) (#20)
    by Anne on Wed Nov 09, 2011 at 01:50:36 PM EST
    can get away with the crap you keep pulling; it's really just kind of mind boggling that you actually think we're that stupid.

    "Sexual harassment" and "sexual misconduct" do not shorthand into "affairs."  Period.  And this little rhetorical tapdance you are doing, attempting to convince us that this (emphasis is mine):

    I wish that the scandal would break more slowly, every week that this drags out, the worse the GOP is going to do with women given some of the comments on this.

    I wish the accusers would slow their information releases a bit and let us bask in the unfortunate statements of the GOP.

    which only a moron would not understand is clearly and specifically about Herman Cain, is "really" "shorthand" for behavior that you say you know the difference between, is asking for people to completely let go of whatever intelligence they have.

    And while I'm "nit-picking," let me add that your giddy reveling in the positive political effect for Democrats that may result from what these women experienced, because it's a Republican on the hot seat, just sickens me.


    Parent

    is this an example (5.00 / 5) (#25)
    by The Addams Family on Wed Nov 09, 2011 at 02:21:37 PM EST
    of your "feminist street cred"?

    Parent
    Hey, I have no problem with ABG (5.00 / 0) (#39)
    by observed on Wed Nov 09, 2011 at 03:05:01 PM EST
    After all, some of my best friends are complete fricking morons! On the other hand, they look great without clothes.. scratch that.

    Parent
    "Yo, Byatches and Hot mamas! (5.00 / 1) (#40)
    by observed on Wed Nov 09, 2011 at 03:10:56 PM EST
    I LOVE feminists!!"

    Parent
    Wow (none / 0) (#49)
    by vicndabx on Wed Nov 09, 2011 at 03:57:10 PM EST
    for someone who claims to want sensitivity to women, this post and it's obvious references in response to a poster named Angry Black Guy is amazing.

    Parent
    Ding. Exactly (1.00 / 1) (#55)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Wed Nov 09, 2011 at 04:54:45 PM EST

    It's weird to me that the first people to use words like that are the ones who claim to hate them the most.

    Nothing in anything I said justified that response, but it's easy to create an Angry Black Strawman, pretend he said a bunch of stuff he didn't and then attack that.

    Parent

    Which is more sensitive, (none / 0) (#92)
    by observed on Wed Nov 09, 2011 at 08:37:33 PM EST
    an obvious joke, or the person the joke refers to, who finds no difference between an affair and aggressive sexual harrassment?
    Get a clue! ABG's attitude is much worse that what I parodied.
    Apparently you haven't read him enough---for that good sense, I applaud you.

    Parent
    Best laugh I've had all day, Addams! (5.00 / 1) (#43)
    by Anne on Wed Nov 09, 2011 at 03:18:59 PM EST
    Thanks...I really needed that!

    Parent
    This has nothing to do with feminism (1.33 / 3) (#27)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Wed Nov 09, 2011 at 02:31:55 PM EST
    I have made clear that everything Cain did was abhorrent.

    This is an example of asshole commenters.

    Parent

    You didn't have to comment. (5.00 / 1) (#30)
    by Mr Natural on Wed Nov 09, 2011 at 02:40:27 PM EST
    SITE VIOLATOR (5.00 / 2) (#47)
    by Amiss on Wed Nov 09, 2011 at 03:38:55 PM EST
    ABG has become a consistent one and perhaps needs a "time out" from posting on this site.

    People that can do nothing but call others names lend nothing to the intelligent conversations that usually occur here.

    Parent

    Please (1.00 / 0) (#56)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Wed Nov 09, 2011 at 04:56:58 PM EST
    I made an fairly straight forward comment and was called a moron by Anne.

    The hypocrisy is astounding.  Where are the cries of attacks and site violations and such for her?

    If Jeralyn reads this chain and picks me out as the person who deserves the ban, this isn't the place I thought it was anyway.

    I have more faith than that.

    Or maybe my position as the resident angry black guy is to let Anne call me a moron and not respond in kind.  You tell me.

    Parent

    "nothing to do with feminism" (4.67 / 3) (#33)
    by The Addams Family on Wed Nov 09, 2011 at 02:49:54 PM EST
    noted

    #FauxgressiveMisogynyists

    Parent

    Let's stop kidding ourselves that you have (5.00 / 3) (#28)
    by Anne on Wed Nov 09, 2011 at 02:33:19 PM EST
    the slightest interest in actual issues; the one, the only thing that matters to you is who's going to get the political benefit of whatever's going on.

    And here's the evidence, in your own words:  

    I wish that the scandal would break more slowly, every week that this drags out, the worse the GOP is going to do with women given some of the comments on this.

    I wish the accusers would slow their information releases a bit and let us bask in the unfortunate statements of the GOP.

    Emphasis is mine.

    There are real people at the heart of this issue.  Real people - women - who have felt harassed, degraded and demeaned, who have felt so intimidated and fearful for their professional lives that they have sat on what happened to them for a long, long time.

    Does that concern you?  Not that anyone could notice from your comments.  No, as long as you can milk as much political benefit out of this for your guy, who cares what this is doing to the women involved, right?

    That feminist crowd you run with must be so, so proud.

    Un-f**king-believable.


    Parent

    I Would Add... (5.00 / 1) (#34)
    by ScottW714 on Wed Nov 09, 2011 at 02:51:11 PM EST
    ...there is a soft tone to the attack on Cain as well.  It's not the same style normally associated by ABG in attacks on his political 'enemies'.

    Well actually, it glaringly transparent and caught me off-guard a bit.  The word 'affairs' of course being the most obvious.

    Why are the gloves on today ?

    Parent

    Scott (none / 0) (#58)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Wed Nov 09, 2011 at 05:00:03 PM EST
    For real? It's my tone now that makes all of the difference?

    Wow. I am being judged not by the fact that I say Cain is completely wrong but by the fact that my tone in saying it isn't up to my typical standards.

    All I am saying is that there have to be new people reading this somewhere on the nets that are like "damn I don't know what preceded this but that ABG guy is getting f*cked in the fairness department".

    Parent

    Agreed. I got that (none / 0) (#64)
    by KeysDan on Wed Nov 09, 2011 at 05:06:12 PM EST
    impression as well adding: the need for balance as in "lying about (affairs) is not a conservative or progressive thing."  True, of course, and while  examples could be cited in affirmation, they would not be offered for approval.  The issue at hand, is allegations of and settlements for, affairs (generously accepting the newly minted definition) by one, Herman Cain, Republican primary candidate for president of the USA.

    Parent
    Right back at you (1.00 / 2) (#31)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Wed Nov 09, 2011 at 02:44:00 PM EST
    You have never in the year that I have posted here said anything positive about Obama and have made up your mind that his every move is calculated evil in one way or another.

    Every criticism you are making about me, I flip, and make about you.

    So we can call a truce or we can just keep saying "I know you are but what am I" over and over again like Pee Wee.

    When I come here and see you give Obama direct credit for anything without couching it in a parallel back handed criticism, I'll believe that you don't have your own agenda.

    Don't like me assuming that your agenda controls your arguments?  Understandable.  I don't either.

    So let's not do it.

    Parent

    Waaaaaaaaaaa (5.00 / 2) (#32)
    by Angel on Wed Nov 09, 2011 at 02:47:06 PM EST
    Leave Obama out of it, buddy.  This is Cain's problem.  

    Parent
    Worse Argument Eva (5.00 / 4) (#36)
    by ScottW714 on Wed Nov 09, 2011 at 02:58:20 PM EST
    Don't like me assuming that your agenda controls your arguments?  Understandable.  I don't either.

    There are a handful of people here with agendas, you being the most blatant.  I never got Anne's agenda, well except the welfare of the country, which would hardly qualify as an agenda.  Which is in direct conflict of yours.


    Parent

    I don't know of a "handful" (5.00 / 0) (#50)
    by christinep on Wed Nov 09, 2011 at 04:17:13 PM EST
    Trying to thread the needle here (while knowing that I can't do it): There are "sides" of a sort here. And, since it openly has political blog aspects, why does that surprise?  None of us can put on the cloak of pure good nor evil...from what I have observed.  

    IMO, people here care about the policy of politics and the politics of policy. For the most part. People argue their positions quite strongly. On both sides. Sometimes it steps over the line to personal insults on both sides, sometimes not.  Hey, I'm shocked...shocked I tell you. :)

    Parent

    Anne (1.00 / 1) (#65)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Wed Nov 09, 2011 at 05:06:16 PM EST
    Has not shown me that she has an agenda other than to be "anti".  And suggest proposals and tactics that have no chance of succeeding.

    She's probably the best proponent of good sounding stuff that can never be applied in real life that I have ever read on a blog.

    I am the opposite and that's why we but heads.  I don't deal in things that are not possible or remotely likely.   People hate it, believe that it's a sign of conservativism or a sign of a love affair with Obama.

    It's really a sign that I don't believe in the pie in the sky liberal aspirations of many in my party and because the guy in the white house now feels basically the same way, it makes it look like my devotion is to him, not what he represents.

    That's the common thread I have since the day I first posted here and udnerlines everything from my position on BTD's take on The Deal to Obama's political strategy to why we should fight as hard as we can for Obama despite the fact that he's imperfect.

    People like Anne hate that. There are more people here like Anne than like me and the bottom line is that when Anne calls me names or fights dirty, it's no big deal because people agree with her. When I do it it's darn near a site violation despite the fact that our tone is identical.

    Anyway, I'd love to take on Anne's positions on the basis of facts and real analysis, but she's not into that. She wants to place me in a box I refuse to be placed into.  It is what it is.

    Parent

    Apparently (5.00 / 1) (#68)
    by sj on Wed Nov 09, 2011 at 05:11:32 PM EST
    You are once again starting today as a new day where nobody has any history and you can create some out of thin air.

    Parent
    Exactly (1.00 / 0) (#71)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Wed Nov 09, 2011 at 05:16:26 PM EST
    If I used history as a guide Anne hates Obama and there is nothing she could say that would convince me otherwise.

    But that's not how I view comments. I read the comments, think about them and then respond.  I don't view every single comment with an idea of fitting it into what I believe is the commenters world view. I take the arguments for what they are.

    BTD was probably the guy that recently showed the importance of that the most.  If I looked at the first six months of the year, every comment he made would be viewed in the lens of a person who wants Obama to lose. Then out of nowhere he makes it clear that that is not the case.

    My assumptions were silly. As are Anne's or anyone else who doesn't take the time to judge an individual argument or comment on its merits first.

    Parent

    Well (5.00 / 2) (#74)
    by sj on Wed Nov 09, 2011 at 05:48:34 PM EST
    You've successfully taken the heat off Cain, thread jacked the discussion and made it all about "the commenters".  Is your work here done yet?  Please?

    Parent
    You have never even posted an (3.67 / 3) (#38)
    by observed on Wed Nov 09, 2011 at 03:02:46 PM EST
    argument, that I have noticed.

    Parent
    observed (1.00 / 3) (#66)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Wed Nov 09, 2011 at 05:08:56 PM EST
    I know you are but what am I.

    Now if we want to go insult for insult, I can play The Dozens with the best of them.  But why? I don't know you so what's the point.  

    Just stick to the issues and it's all good.  Read through this chain and you will see that I don't attack first personally.  I was talking about issues.

    Anne and others couldn't handle my take and made it personal.  

    Parent

    Bottom (1.00 / 3) (#70)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Wed Nov 09, 2011 at 05:13:25 PM EST
    line:

    Anne's first response to me wasn't to address my point.  It was to accuse me of having commenting in bad faith. It was a direct attack.  There was no intellectual back and forth inherent in her comment.

    My response was to respond to that.  Perhaps my response should be to know my position and stay in it and when Anne attacks me to take it like a good boy.

    If that's what I am supposed to do, let me know.

    Parent

    Two different animals. Find a dictionary, please. (5.00 / 2) (#16)
    by Angel on Wed Nov 09, 2011 at 12:40:16 PM EST
    but actually you said (5.00 / 3) (#17)
    by The Addams Family on Wed Nov 09, 2011 at 12:42:34 PM EST
    lying about affairs

    which is different from saying "lying about [this whole] affair," which you now characterize as the implied meaning of your first comment

    Parent

    More than that (5.00 / 5) (#21)
    by sj on Wed Nov 09, 2011 at 01:53:40 PM EST
    Obviously the sexual harassment aspect is the big issue.

    The sexual harassment is the issue.  Lordy, reading your comments here I have to say that you give ignorant male troglodytes a bad name.  Please, I beg of you, do not comment on the Penn State Sandusky case.  I do not want to hear about his "affairs" with young boys.

    Parent

    sj (none / 0) (#29)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Wed Nov 09, 2011 at 02:36:23 PM EST
    It is not the only issue. At least not politically.

    There are people on the right who don't believe in sexual harassment.  They think it is a PC myth.

    However those same people also tend to have a problem with adulterers. A big problem.

    So from our vantage point on the side of righteousness, obviously the sexual harassment is the issue.  But for purposes of the republican primary, the idea that Cain was trying to cheat on his wife and may have lied about some things may actually be more of an issue.

    Cain won't make it to the general, so how it would influence our vote is largely irrelevant.

    This is about the conservative mindset and the conservatives do not see sexual harassment the way that we do.

    As with many issues, you are confusing my analysis of an issue with my own personal opinions of the issue.


    Parent

    You really do (5.00 / 1) (#41)
    by sj on Wed Nov 09, 2011 at 03:17:05 PM EST
    give ignorant, male troglodytes a bad name.  I wonder if this is the kind of rancid trash you tried to peddle at Shakesville.  Gosh, I didn't know that not believing in a law made the law irrelevant.  

    Conflating harassment with consent is really a new level of low -- even for you.  This isn't analysis.  You may as well conjecture about how knowledge of his sex act with a sheep would be received.  It would be just as relevant.

    Parent

    Sexual harassment is not (5.00 / 3) (#45)
    by Anne on Wed Nov 09, 2011 at 03:28:04 PM EST
    "trying to cheat on [one's] wife."

    Have you ever heard the expression that rape is not about sex, but about power?  Well, sexual harassment isn't really about sex, either - it, too, is about power.

    I'm kind of surprised that someone who claims to be a feminist doesn't know this.  Oh, wait - you aren't actually a feminist, you just impersonate one in the blogosphere (hint: it takes more than dropping buzz words into comments to establish feminist credibility) - and it's really not a very good impersonation, at that.

    And your attempts at political analysis are even worse; no one's buying what you're selling.

    Parent

    Anne (1.00 / 0) (#72)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Wed Nov 09, 2011 at 05:24:36 PM EST
    There is no way that you read my comment and understood it if you made this comment.

    None.

    Parent

    To infer (5.00 / 1) (#76)
    by lentinel on Wed Nov 09, 2011 at 06:38:02 PM EST
    that your comment is difficult for anyone to understand is really laughable. It is transparent.

    Parent
    ABG, you can game the political (5.00 / 1) (#96)
    by Anne on Wed Nov 09, 2011 at 10:16:23 PM EST
    implications til the cows come home, but you continue to demonstrate in your comments that you don't understand the issues that underlie the politics, which is why you get so much flak.

    I still do not have a sense that you understand what sexual harassment is, or why I objected to your equating it with "affairs," or why I found it offensive that you would derive pleasure from what these women went through because of a possible political benefit to Democrats; to make matters worse, you then tried to convince me and others that what we were seeing in print was not what you said.

    Frankly, ABG, I'm not all that sure that you understand your comments most of the time.

    Parent

    More moral Limbo dancing. (none / 0) (#37)
    by observed on Wed Nov 09, 2011 at 03:00:41 PM EST
    This is no surprise, considering the source.
    What I don't understand is why.
    The only reason I can come up with is not colorblind.

    Parent
    For you, Mr. Guy, (none / 0) (#52)
    by lentinel on Wed Nov 09, 2011 at 04:49:39 PM EST
    this is about the GOP - and the veiled expectation that this could help Mr. "Sweetie" Obama's reelection bid.

    Parent
    in ABG's (partial) defense . . . (none / 0) (#60)
    by The Addams Family on Wed Nov 09, 2011 at 05:00:59 PM EST
    Herman Cain is a Republican presidential candidate who aspires to be the Republican presidential nominee & to defeat the Democratic presidential nominee

    ABG's grasp of the sexual politics of l'affaire Cain is one thing, but on a site named TalkLeft, & in a thread devoted to Democratic/progressive politics, i think it's entirely reasonable that ABG views Cain's actions & situation in terms of political outcomes for President Obama

    Parent

    Oh, I completely agree (5.00 / 3) (#67)
    by sj on Wed Nov 09, 2011 at 05:09:18 PM EST
    i think it's entirely reasonable that ABG views Cain's actions & situation in terms of political outcomes for President Obama

    But to do that he would have to be talking about the actual alleged actions. Not spinning those alleged actions as something they are not.  And then blaming that spin on ignorant Republican voters.

    Parent

    Hard to think of any other way accusations (none / 0) (#61)
    by oculus on Wed Nov 09, 2011 at 05:03:18 PM EST
    against Cain and his denials are relevant here.  Sure gets people riled up though.

    Parent
    slow news day, i guess (none / 0) (#63)
    by The Addams Family on Wed Nov 09, 2011 at 05:04:00 PM EST
    Personally, (none / 0) (#75)
    by lentinel on Wed Nov 09, 2011 at 06:36:11 PM EST
    I think that this blog, if that is what it is, is more dedicated to discussing the actions of the government and how it affects the citizens of this country - and the world.

    Republican v/s Democrat is more the fodder of CNN and the like.

    Parent

    This comment, (none / 0) (#77)
    by lentinel on Wed Nov 09, 2011 at 06:40:25 PM EST
    coming from a person who calls himself a guy and parades before us his hobby of going to feminist websites to talk about pornography?

    Parent
    Lentinel (5.00 / 1) (#79)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Wed Nov 09, 2011 at 06:54:35 PM EST
    1. Calling myself a guy is offensive or wrong in some way?  Is the angry black girl who has a liberal blog wrong too?

    2.  Porn is a frequent topic of discussion on feminist blogs.

    I don't get what your are trying to say?

    Parent
    I don't get what your are trying to say? (none / 0) (#80)
    by lentinel on Wed Nov 09, 2011 at 07:05:19 PM EST
    Really?

    Parent
    Really (none / 0) (#84)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Wed Nov 09, 2011 at 07:48:07 PM EST
    Explain to me in a non attacking way so I can counter.  I am not clever enough to get what's wrong with my name for example.

    Parent
    It's aggressive. (5.00 / 1) (#99)
    by observed on Thu Nov 10, 2011 at 04:59:27 AM EST
    It suggests that you are not able to brook disagreement in a civil fashion.
    It also seems accurate, at least as far as the first and third words go ( I cannot judge the second).
    My experience is that names like yours are quite often completely inaccurate, biographically. I saw this a lot at DK when I used to go there.
    Someone would preface an argument by saying "As a 50's dyke who has marched in many protests, and has two dogs and 1 1/2 trucks, my viewpoints.."
    The name  choice is intended to confer a validity which should be adduced by the readers, solely by the content and structure of the arguments.
    In short, your name is offensive, by itself.
    Speaking for myself only.


    Parent
    I wonder what kind of reception (none / 0) (#100)
    by observed on Thu Nov 10, 2011 at 06:04:01 AM EST
    "AngryWhiteMan" would get here. Do you think that name would have any effect at all on how people judge the poster? Could it have a positive effect, in your opinion?
    Supposing your answer is no, think about what kind of motive a person might have for choosing such a name.

    Parent
    See below (none / 0) (#103)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Thu Nov 10, 2011 at 08:45:54 AM EST
    If the explanation I just provided.

    People that understand the stereotype, get the irony of the name.

    Good discussion of the stereotype here:

    Link

    "The article quoted scholars on race relations who said many white Americans would be unsettled by Obama losing his temper because he would evoke the stereotype of the angry African-American man."

    Now that I have explained it, hopefully you understand. I knew that in taking the name I would have to explain and defend it to conservatives (and I welcomed that), but most progressives are in on the joke.  

    This is the first time it has ever been questioned on a progressive blog and almost everyone that has asked about it in the past gets "the joke" and the social commentary.  

    Parent

    Also (none / 0) (#104)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Thu Nov 10, 2011 at 08:51:33 AM EST
    the fact that you labeled it as "aggressive" completely validates the stereotype.  If I was "angry working voter" or "angry soccer mom" or "angry union member" or "angry progressive" you would not assume aggression.

    You would assume that they were angry about something they were passionate about that is probably connected to the rest of their name.

    Parent

    You asume to much, as usual (none / 0) (#105)
    by observed on Thu Nov 10, 2011 at 09:08:32 AM EST
    Anyone with an "angry" name comes across as aggressive, right from the start. I would say "angrywhiteman" seems even MORE in your face aggressive than your moniker.

    Parent
    angry white man (none / 0) (#107)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Thu Nov 10, 2011 at 09:15:16 AM EST
    has no context.

    Angry Black Man has all of the required context for anyone that understands the stereotypes and the history.

    If you understood the history, you would have immediately understood why someone would take the name.

    The "Angry Black Woman" trope is even more prevalent. You should read up on it:

    http://theangryblackwoman.com/

    I made no assumptions. I understand exactly why I choose the name and understood that there would be people like you who knew nothing about the stereotype that would immediately fall victim to the stereotype.  I also knew I'd get an opportunity to point out the stereotype when it happened.

    I assumed nothing.  This discussion is in part why I chose the name.

    Parent

    You have got to be kidding!!! (none / 0) (#111)
    by observed on Fri Nov 11, 2011 at 03:01:14 AM EST
    "Angry White man" has been a trope for at least 30 years, and probably much longer.
    Yet again, you bring unsupported, unstated assumptions to a discssion, and expect people to behave as if they both knew and accepted your assumptions. Amazing.


    Parent
    May I suggest a new SN? (5.00 / 1) (#112)
    by observed on Fri Nov 11, 2011 at 03:33:56 AM EST
    PoorCommunicatorOfIndeterminateRace/Gender.

    Parent
    observed (none / 0) (#113)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Fri Nov 11, 2011 at 10:23:59 AM EST
    You are wrong, but there is no upside in disproving your statements.  

    My name is my name.  I explained to you why I chose it, and the story and significance is at least as thoughtful as "observed".

    But feel free to keep arguing about my name by yourself if you'd like.

    Parent

    Right (none / 0) (#102)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Thu Nov 10, 2011 at 08:40:07 AM EST
    So clearly you don't understand the history.

    The "Angry Black Man" is a common stereotype. It's such a common stereotype that people have written stories and social commentary about that. Here is one such commentary:

    "A stock character popular in the 1970s - 1980s. A male black youth, the Angry Black Man knows that The Man is out to get him, and that the Revolution will soon come and whitey will have his back against the wall."

    I took the name as a play on the trope and stereotype during the 2008 elections because so many people angry with the PUMAs were labeled as such.

    That's why I choose the name and in context it was amusing to folks who got the joke and remains relevant almost everywhere that I post as a reminder that I understand a lot of the stereotypical assumptions of a black man talking passionately about racism and other issues.

    Shorter: You have no idea what my name means and it doesn't really matter what you think of it.  People that understand the "Angry Black Man" stereotype get it and when those that don't get up in arms, it validates the subtle point of the name.

    Everyone gets angry.  But people are discomforted when black men get angry.

    If anything, this back and forth proved that the point I was trying to make when I chose the name.

     

    Parent

    I guess I don't think of people as (5.00 / 1) (#108)
    by Anne on Thu Nov 10, 2011 at 11:16:59 AM EST
    stereotypes, as fitting, in a one-size-fits-all kind of way, any generic label, and perhaps others here don't think that way, either.  

    And maybe they, like me, don't really understand why someone would want to identify themselves as a stereotype, since doing so is probably only going to influence what others think about where you are coming from in your comments.  

    So, basically, you're saying that you're a black man who was so consumed with anger at Hillary supporters that you decided to announce your anger wherever you went in the blogosphere.  Sounds a little extreme, to me, but given the flashes of that anger that you display from time to time, you're obviously still very angry.

    So, am I to understand that you want people to be discomfited with you right from the get-go?  I don't understand why you would want to erect that kind of barrier between yourself and those reading your comments or attempting to engage you.  I don't understand how the alienating stereotype you announce with your name provides you with opportunities to discuss racism and other issues.

    You're right that you don't have to explain the genesis of the name you chose, but I think, speaking for myself here, that you use your name less as some kind of subtle insider put-down of those who don't "get it," and more like a convenient excuse for why people don't fall all over themselves applauding your comments and opinions.

    The rhetorical contortions you perform within the framework of your comments are what kill your attempts to be taken seriously, not your anger, your race or your gender.

    Parent

    ABG's comment (none / 0) (#109)
    by Jeralyn on Thu Nov 10, 2011 at 12:45:01 PM EST
    in reply to this was deleted for the offensive links he put in it.

    Parent
    Well, if you didn't act the stereotype, (none / 0) (#106)
    by observed on Thu Nov 10, 2011 at 09:09:22 AM EST
    you might be able to make an interesting point. Think about it.

    Parent
    Your (none / 0) (#98)
    by lentinel on Thu Nov 10, 2011 at 03:11:39 AM EST
    nom de plume is mentioned in as much as you identify yourself by gender.

    I think that what you did, going to Shakesville, and offering your view that,

    "there are progressive and feminist women out there who are comfortable with porn"
    is not very manly.

    Parent
    This thread is about Herman Cain (none / 0) (#110)
    by Jeralyn on Thu Nov 10, 2011 at 12:48:23 PM EST
    and Sharon Bialek, not ABG , his name or racism. Let's get back on topic or I'll close it.

    Parent
    it makes no sense (1.00 / 0) (#51)
    by diogenes on Wed Nov 09, 2011 at 04:36:48 PM EST
    " But Bialak and witnesses say differently, since a month ago at a function, Bialak was seen approaching him, hugging him and talking to him."

    Since when does someone who was sexually harassed go up to her harasser at a function and hug and talk to him?  

    You're a guy, aren't you? (5.00 / 1) (#53)
    by sj on Wed Nov 09, 2011 at 04:51:21 PM EST
    Sure it does (5.00 / 0) (#57)
    by Yman on Wed Nov 09, 2011 at 04:59:30 PM EST
    the person characterizing the meeting as a "hug" was a radio host from Chicago who was attending the event.  She later went on Beck to explain what she saw:

    Jacobson described that at a Tea Party convention in October, the accuser, Sharon Bialek, rushed Herman Cain backstage. She held his attention for 2-3 minutes, and after what appeared to be an intense and in-depth discussion Bialek stormed off.

    Amy said she doesn't know what was said, but that it looked like she "has a point to make" and then left quickly.

    Bialek has publicly stated her reasons for doing so - "I went up to him and asked him if he remembered me. I wanted to see if he would be man enough to own up to what he had done 14 years ago."

    Parent

    The reporter is telling to different stories (2.00 / 1) (#73)
    by loveed on Wed Nov 09, 2011 at 05:34:00 PM EST
    which one should we believe?

    Parent
    Not sure I believe either one (none / 0) (#82)
    by Yman on Wed Nov 09, 2011 at 07:25:25 PM EST
    She characterizes the meeting very differently in both interviews.  Beyond that, she readily admits she has no idea what was discussed.

    Parent
    Still doesn't make sense (none / 0) (#93)
    by diogenes on Wed Nov 09, 2011 at 09:01:36 PM EST
    From the link:
    "Bialek told the media on Monday: "I went up to him and asked him if he remembered me. I wanted to see if he would be man enough to own up to what he had done 14 years ago."
    ◆The encounter: "It looked sort of flirtatious," said Jacobson. "I mean they were hugging. But she could have been giving him the kiss of death for all I know. I had no idea what they were talking about, but she was inches from his ear."

    The encounter was one month ago, before this story broke.  Now we have the current Bialek version.  If Cain had really remembered Bialek, don't you think that he would have been forewarned about these allegations before the story broke?  For all we know, Bialek might have been looking for more blackmail money or a cushy campaign job; she sure didn't break this story early in the campaign.  Bialek seems about as dependable as Linda Tripp.

    Parent

    What do you mean ... (5.00 / 1) (#95)
    by Yman on Wed Nov 09, 2011 at 10:07:07 PM EST
    ... the current Bialek version?  She's only had one version.  Jacobson was the talk radio host who gave two (arguably) conflicting versions of the meeting, although she acknowledged she had no idea what they were speaking about.

    So what if Cain was "forewarned"?  There wasn't much he could do, except for hope that Bialek wouldn't go public.  She didn't, until Cain started trashing the other two accusers and making conflicting statements in trying to minimize their claims.

    "For all we know" ... heh.  Do you realize you can make up anything after those words, all without a single bit of evidence.  Of course, it's more than a little transparent.  BTW - If she was trying to "blackmail" Cain for money or a campaign job, how long do you think it would have been before he held a conference to let the press know about it, rather than claiming he didn't know her?

    The Linda Tripp reference also makes no sense, other than to try to analogize the situation to the Clinton-Lewinsky scandal - a couple of others have tried to do that as well.

    They also failed.

    Parent

    Odd? (none / 0) (#2)
    by vicndabx on Wed Nov 09, 2011 at 10:47:59 AM EST
    Bialak was seen approaching him, hugging him and talking to him


    #SheWasAskingForIt (5.00 / 1) (#35)
    by The Addams Family on Wed Nov 09, 2011 at 02:51:56 PM EST
    Bialak was on MSNBC before saying that (none / 0) (#3)
    by byteb on Wed Nov 09, 2011 at 11:06:36 AM EST
    she didn't hug him but rather grabbed his arm to get his attention and then spoke to him. She refused to say exactly what she said to him but my impression from what she said on air was that it wasn't a normal 'hello, how are you' kind of greeting.

    Parent
    as if to confront him? (none / 0) (#5)
    by DFLer on Wed Nov 09, 2011 at 11:27:58 AM EST
    a month old (none / 0) (#94)
    by diogenes on Wed Nov 09, 2011 at 09:03:54 PM EST
    If she had really confronted him a month ago then don't you think that he would have been forewarned about the sex scandal well before the time it actually broke?

    Parent
    Quite obviously he WAS forewarned. (5.00 / 1) (#97)
    by observed on Thu Nov 10, 2011 at 02:10:33 AM EST
    What's your point?
    Is he supposed to say "You are soon going to hear allegations that I groped several women inappropriately. These 5 allegations are categorically false"???


    Parent
    Maybe (none / 0) (#23)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Nov 09, 2011 at 02:04:10 PM EST
    we will stop hearing about Herman Cain now.

    That would be nice (none / 0) (#24)
    by BobTinKY on Wed Nov 09, 2011 at 02:10:51 PM EST
    it's not like thi sguy has any chance of being the nominee

    Parent
    Apparently (none / 0) (#42)
    by sj on Wed Nov 09, 2011 at 03:18:11 PM EST
    it's not harassment if he doesn't believe in it.

    His spouse, per him, can't even (5.00 / 1) (#62)
    by oculus on Wed Nov 09, 2011 at 05:03:58 PM EST
    imagine him doing those things.!

    Parent