Whatever happened to "innocent until proven guilty" and "objective" journalism?

Apparently they've went the way of the Dodo Bird.

During his presidency, three women openly and officially accused then-President Bill Clinton of sexual misconduct; in 1994 Paula Jones filed a sexual harrassment suit against him and in 1998 both Kathleen Willey and Juanita Broaddrick filed charges against him (Willey, sexual assault and Broaddrick, rape).

What's the point? Clinton at least got the chance to face all three of his accusers.

Fast forward to November, 2011. Republican presidential candidate Herman Cain has been accused by supposedly three accusers of harrassment. Why "supposedly?" Because so far none of the three have been named nor have their specific allegations apparently been detailed. Anytime anyone attempting to investigate or refute the charges - which for damned sure hasn't been any of the puppets in the liberal media - lawyers claiming to represent the allegedly-aggrieved women step forward and say their clients prefer to remain anonymous. Now, isn't that convenient? Let's not let the rules of evidence get in the way of a good smear campaign.

The closest anyone's came to any specifics whatsoever is to produce some settlement documents from the first case but these lack Herman Cain's signature. Therefore, it's hard to dispute his stance that he even knew of such allegations ever being filed, let alone ever agreeing to any kind of settlement with this woman.

I haven't fully decided who I'm voting for for president, but how about it? If someone has some credible evidence that Cain behaved inappropriately or even criminally, then do tell! If not, then what say the liberal press stop trying the man in the media on innuendo and allegation and show a little respect for the law and the concept of "innocent until proven guilty?" To do otherwise is to sink to the level of a propaganda campaign the likes of which would make Nazi Propaganda Minister Joseph Goebbels proud.