I’ll cut to the chase. The surefire way to cast doubt on a woman is to make her look like a whore. And in this case, Herman Cain is doing so not by calling paramour number four a whore outright, but to imply it. Cain supporters have noted that Sharon Bialek has a history of financial troubles and that she could possibly be motivated by potential financial gains in leveling these accusations.
By implying that’s she’s incentivized by cash, they’re calling her a whore. They’re doing it in slightly more opaque language, relying on the audience to come to that conclusion themselves, but the goal is the same. It brings to mind Ronald Reagan’s obsession with ‘states’ rights’ in the 1980s, a code word that was widely seen to signal to die hard segregationists that he was with them, though not willing to explicitly say so.
And so it’s the same with Cain. Could Bialek possibly monetize this incident? Perhaps. But she could just as easily opt not to. In this day and age, who among us, particularly given the present state of the economy, hasn’t had money problems? To discredit someone simply due to the fact that they’ve experienced financial hardship is not a valid reason to cast doubt on what is an otherwise consistent and mounting problem for Herman Cain. It’s cheap of Cain to do so, but with everything that we’ve learned of him thus far, he’s a pretty cheap guy.