I wasn't looking for a justification as that is not relevant in my inquiry.

I was merely looking for a comparison of improper behavior by two public figures and the simple fact one happens to be sheltered because he is a dem within Obama's ranks, hence no exploitation of the wrong doing...no keeping the public in the know about the wrong doing. No pursuing of the multitudes of opportunities to uncover more of the story.

Whereas Cain's alleged wrong doing is jumped upon immediately by the media and every nuance, credible or not, is pursued and reported on.

If the media treated Cain as Holder the allegations would be non events.
If the media treated Holder as they are Cain...Holder would have been forced to resign by now.

DJP as for your comment:
"...in order to let the country know what kind of man YOU encountered...."

You really believe the trumped up publicity in any way reveals what kind of man Cain is? An incident from 10-15 years ago? It is about as relevant to what kind of man he is as the unfavorable revelations from Obama's past that were very quickly categorized as what a person just did that many years ago.

And in today's partisan polarized America to say it does not matter whether an R or a D is either wishful thinking....an attempted smoke job...or very naieve or you are employing the legal justification of past events to justify the present.

The thread addresses the obvious discrimination by the media for alleged wrong doings.

btk