I'm not sure.

Somebody did some digging on this because the one thing we know is that it didn't come from the Cain Campaign. (If I'm wrong on this, then Mr. Cain gets the brass balls award of the year...)

Was it the team at Politico digging into Cain's past that came up with this? Were they tipped off by a rival campaign? Did the Obama Administration have anything to do with this? Was it, in fact, a smear job?

Let's start with the last question first. According to Merriam-Webster's online dictionary, "smear" means a usually unsubstantiated charge or accusation against a person or organisation - often used attributively <a smear campaign> <a smear job>

For this to be a smear job, it would have to be totally fabricated. Even the Cain organisation now admits there was an investigation, a finding of some unknown determination and a payout of an uncertain amount. Given the confidentiality agreements in place, which prevent the two women from telling their side of the story, its obviously lacking details. Which is quite different from not existing. Something Herman Cain did while head of the National Restaurant Association offended two different women, proved substantial enough for the organisation to conduct an internal investigation and resulted in cash settlements for the women in question to sign confidentiality agreements and leave the company.

So, this matter has not been fabricated...

It may have been small beans. It may have been the most innocent...

Click Who's to blame for the Herman Cain scandal? here to continue reading...