Give it to the left, they are not afraid to call the exact same play twice. When another accomplished conservative african-american, Clarence Thomas, was about to ascend to a position of great prominence, they produced scurrilous and fairly ridiculous charges of sexual harassment. The charges, from Thomas' longtime protege Anita Hill, amounted to nothing, even if true, eg some rebuffed requests for dates and some lockerroom joking in the office, but were elevated by the left and their media allies into an allout smear offensive. But for Thomas' great personal courage, he would be a footnote in history, as the weak moderate republicans behind his nomination, Sen. John Danforth and Pres. Bush, would have folded like cheap lawn chairs. Thomas refused to withdraw his nomination and faced down the charges. Anita Hill became a heroine of the left, even though her charges were discredited and she was shown to be the worst sort of backstabber and craven opportunist. She has ridden her role into cushy academic positions, lately at Brandeis, once a respected institution. Now we see the same play again. According to a report in a liberal rag, nameless accusers claim that Herman Cain sexually harassed them in the '90's. He firmly denies anything untoward happened. No doubt it will dog him throughout the campaign however, true or false. I could accept this kind if thing if the media were consistent, but they are anything but. Going back to JFK and beyond, they have covered up sexual escapades of democrat candidates and officeholders. Much of the Washington press corps were aware of JFK's reckless affairs. Ben Bradlee, the Washington Post editor who had a huge role in the lynching of Richard Nixon, often partied with JFK in the White House. Not a word of scandal ever reached the public, lest the lie of "Camelot" be spoiled. Similarly, LBJ was a serial womanizer and corrupt thug to boot. To the me4dia, he was the second coming of FDR, in more ways than one. The liberal media also covered up FDR's ongoing affair while president. The media displayed a new found interest in sexual misconduct when Ronald Reagan was in the White House. Then the object was teh First Lady, nancy, who had been accused in a scurrilous book of having had an affair with Frank Sinatra. When serial womanizer, accused rapist and confirmed sexual predator Bill Clinton was president, the media took on its familiar role of protector of liberal democrats. Instead of investigating the charges, it demonized or belittled the women, calling them trailer park trash or hinting that they were unstable. We were pompously lectured that sexual matters were private, something between a husband and wife, even though the wife in this case, hillary Clinton, had her own set of rumours of affairs that were dutifully ignored. Now, with an accomplished and much admired conservative black man on the verge of making history, in rush the media to try to smear him as they did Clarence Thomas. This would be the same media who spent much of the 2008 campaign ignoring various claims of corruption, association with mobsters and terrorists and radicalism when the object was their favored candidate, Barrack obama. Is it too much to expect some tiny bit of ethics and professionalism from the media or should we just ignore them altogether?