Herman Cain denies sexual harassment allegations

This story has Carl Rove written all over it. The genius of it is that the other conservative fools cooperate with master Carl and point the finger at the "liberal press".

I believe Herman Cain about not knowing too much about the "settlement", most corporations regardless of the validity of an accusation will settle because it is cheaper in the long run than a lengthy court hearing, etc. People in high positions, like he had at the time, get accused of a lot of things when they are simply being conversational or friendly, it stems out of spike when things don't go as the accuser had planned for advancement in a corporation. I am not saying that all sexual harrassment cases shouldn't be looked at when they are brought to light. But in defense of Herman not knowing how things were settled I believe, because after it is investigated and he would have given a statement at the time it is then turned over to corporate lawyers. They don't care about saving the reputation of the person getting accused, it comes down to how can the corporation get out of it the cheapest way possible. Keep strong Herman!!!

Herman Cain's explanation of a "settlement" vs Agreement" has the same ring of a used car salesman's "used" vs "previously owned'.
Based on his deceptive tactics, I'll not vote for Cain-ever!

Hernan Cain. Just another backwoods preacher who has somehow found his was off the dirt roads. Will many Americans be so stupid as to give him a vote? Well yes! They voted for Bush and Obama; didn" they!

I don't believe a word Mr. Cain said. You don't just FORGET what someone has accused you of regardless of how long ago it was, or how ridiculous what the person said had happened. I'm sure he knows and remembers everything that happened just like it was yesterday, and his accusers were paid off so the couldn't come forward and tell the American people the real story behind Mr. Cain!

"Mom's" comments shows (s)he has no absolutely understanding of sexual harassment or why such laws exist for employees! When a boss (or executive) makes an untoward comment to a lesser-ranked employee it creates tremendous pressure on that employee. Should she react? Will she be fired if she doesn't comply or resists? If a man on the street makes the same comment she might put him in his place, but her with boss she is more likely to remain silent and feel compelled to accept whatever he wants to say or do. What do you say when your married boss asks that you and he share a room on a business trip? Giggle? No you claim sexual harassment. What do you do when your boss hugs you from behind? Rub up agsist him? No, you claim sexual harassment! Mom, if you are a mother and likewise once a young ambititious woman you'd realize 99.9% women would never claim sexual harassment to get ahead or for revenge. For you to suggest, shows broad ignorance. Your comment is maddening. Before you go to bed tonight, think (or research, if necessary) Clarence Thomas, Dominique Strauss-Kahn, Arnold Schwartznegger.

Trying their best but I believe this man is a straight-shooter. A hard man socially but I believe the current President is doing his best in the ring.

How ridiculous is it that a former CEO (OF A PIZZA COMPANY!!!)/radio talk show host/chairman of a restaurant organization wants to run for president. Couldn't he have been a congressman or governor first? Oh wait, he lost a senate race; and look at the scandal he caused at Aquila. So why should he even run for prez in the first place instead of going a step down to some easier to attain public office for real political experience? No matter how bad the first black president of the US is now, shouldn't the first black republican presidential candidate have much better credentials; and hardly any, or no scandalous past than the current one? Colin Powell was supposed to be it, but chose to be a turncoat, instead of holding his tongue; sticking to conservative causes; and waiting for the 2012 race. Condi would have been a better choice for the GOP to support. Don't make this presidential race be about whose black party member is better. It's which side has the best person to run the country from 2012 till the next election. Remember in MLK's speech about being judged not by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character (includes past actions). Looks like the bar has been set, but not met. A more distinguished and dignified black person should have run instead.

Governors historically make better presidents. Actually Sarah Palin has just as good a record, if not better, than any governor now. She did help create $12-15 billion in surplus in just two years in office instead of staying as gov, and end up bankrupt by the end of her term. In revenge, Sarah even helped rally ppl to take back the House for the GOP, which seems to have been ungrateful in using her for help. She brought Wal-Mart into Wasilla as Mayor. The prez, when as senator, refused to build a Wal-Mart in one of his areas to bring jobs and cheaper products to his ppl, instead chose to use tax money clean up city parks that residents angrily say the drug dealers and other criminals returned to. Hmmm, parks for the unemployed to waste time in; instead of jobs, more tax revenue, and inexpensive products.

Sarah/Condi or Rubio 2012 or 2016.