The media consensus is that Herman Cain’s goose is cooked. The reason? New accusations that he’s a sexual harasser.
This of course makes no sense. Because they have a name in politics for sexual harassers.
Here’s a test. Try to think of a sexually harassing politician who lost because of his behavior (or her) behavior. It’s hard, isn’t?
Now think of those who succeeded in spite of revelations of sexual harassment. The most popular living president, Bill Clinton, was a sexual harasser who, if anything, benefited from the accusations (his party made gains during his impeachment, which originated with a sexual harassment inquiry). And this very state twice elected a man whose response to allegations of sexual harassment and groping (which may or may not have risen to the level of assault) was the broad admission “where there’s smoke, there’s fire.” So if Cain falls apart, it won’t be sexual harassment that does it.
So if a sexual harassment accusation won’t undo a campaign, what would? Well, the most damaging thing you could probably say about a candidate for president is that he’s a veteran of the American armed forces. There’s no surer loser than a veteran.
The past five presidential elections have pitted a military veteran against a non-veteran in the general elections. In all five cases, the veteran – McCain, Kerry, Gore, Dole, and Papa Bush – lost.
Americans apparently are more comfortable with candidates who broke the rules in the war of the sexes – than with someone who served us in an actual war.