Yes, I did read your remarks. I did not disagree with your suspicion that this is a witch hunt, as in the case of Clarence Thomas. Without repeating what I said, I’ll just say that your remarks can be construed as saying that our candidates never have personal issues that make them less than the ideal candidate for our party so we should simply dismiss any accusation saying that they do.
For me, the candidate as a man (or as a woman) is very important. I was happy to support Bob Dole in 1996 and John McCain in 2008 because of who they were as men (and also because of Jack Kemp and Sarah Palin, with whom I agreed more on the policy issues).
PS I really like Herman Cain for who he is as a man, and I hope he pulls through this fine. He will be a better candidate for it. Not having the experience of Romney or Perry in politics, this is kind of his baptism under fire.
That construction is tenuous, at best. You would need to apply that same inference to my Clinton reference, as well. My point is that the dual standard is evidence of a manipulative racism. We do not use that standard against white Clinton, but we do against black Thomas and Cain. Certainly, the facts against Clinton are much better documented. How else could we explain the difference in treatment?