I disagree. When they have a legitimate story, they should run it. Politico didn't have a legitimate story, in my opinion, when they first ran it (or a large number of their stories).
Did Herman Cain offer documentation for his statement that one claim was based on a hand gesture indicating that a woman was the same height as his wife?
No. He said that's what he did. He offered no documentation.
Did Cain offer documentation that a former advisor who worked on his Senate campaign leaked the story to Politico?
No. He just knew. He offered no documentation.
As I've been saying, the headline of this article is nonsense.
You can have a legitimate story without documentation. That's why I asked for a summary of the twenty-minute video. Because just saying "No documentation!" and expecting that to be d*mning is wrong on a rational level.
Do you believe the many things Herman Cain has said about this matter? I gather the answer is yes. Has he offered 'documentation' of most the things he's said? No. We're relying on his integrity.
Documentation is not the be-all and end-all. It's not on the list of Journalistic Ethics that was thrown in my face by another poster as the answer.
So I read a headline that said "Politico had no documentation of accusations" and my first thought was . . . well, yeah, but if I'm going to watch a twenty-minute video tell me something new that says the accusations aren't true.
Saying "no documentation" is either just attacking the messenger or hiding the ball.
The burden is on the accuser to prove that the charges are true, not on the accused to prove a negative.
You asked about my feelings on the matter.. who do I believe? Until I see some real evidence, I believe that Cain is probably innocent of the charges, but there is currently no way for any of us to know. I do think it is suspicious that the accuser won't bring forth the agreement that she and her attorney signed.
In the end, I believed Clarence Thomas because not a one of the folks who knew both Thomas and Hill sided with her. And in the end, even if everything she said was true, what's the big deal? I have no patience for women who want to be equal to men in the workplace, but still want to be put on a pedestal. It drives me crazy.
Since I live in CA, my opinion on the election is pretty irrelevant. The candidate will be picked before we even vote, which is OK with me, since most of CA is pretty liberal.
For what it's worth:
1) I hate Romney
2) I don't care for Huntsman or Paul
3) I think a Cain/Gingrich ticket makes a lot of sense, but I could support any of the remaining candidates without reservation. My two cents.