SUPPORT for Herman Cain's improbable presidential candidacy was falling even before Ginger White told the media about her alleged affair with the pizza mogul. It is now likely to fall much further, assuming Mr Cain does not end his campaign before the next poll comes out. And this has some wondering if a candidate's infidelity is fair game, or if it's a private matter unfit for public scrutiny.

According to Mr Cain's lawyer, it is the latter.


Sounds good, but that is a proposition not generally adhered to in America. And part of the reason these boundaries are not respected by the media is because they are ignored by politicians.

Candidates increasingly treat their private life, in the form of their spouses and children, like a campaign prop, something to be put on display in an effort to promote a wholesome image. Sarah Palin irked liberals in 2008 by parading her youngest son around while deflecting questions about his birth. Barack Obama was similarly accused by conservatives of wanting it both ways after okaying an interview with his daughters while pleading for privacy. This year, at nearly every Republican debate, at least one of the candidates has cited their stable family as a selling point. That's why we know that Michele Bachmann has raised 23 foster children, or that Herman Cain has been married to his wife, Gloria, for 43 years. We know the latter because that's how Mr Cain introduced himself at the debate in Las Vegas.

At that debate, following Mr Cain's marital boast, the candidate proceeded to call himself a "42-year businessman". Now it is unclear to me why the press should have cause to interrogate only one of those claims, as both are being used to craft an image. And if that public image is at odds with the truth, should it not be reported? Mr Cain's lawyer talks of intrusions into a candidate's "private sexual life", but that makes the subject matter sound more salacious than it is. What reporters are actually doing is fact-checking a piece of the candidate's public presentation. 

There are other reasons why the demarcation put forward by Mr Cain's lawyer doesn't generally hold. Often it is because a candidate's personal affairs contradict his prescriptions for the public. This type of hypocrisy is also worth reporting, and in this specific case one could cite Mr Cain's defence of the institution of marriage as a reason to expose his violation of it. Though, in general, Mr Cain has not been as much of a moral crusader as some of his rivals.

Lost in this debate is the fact that Mr Cain's greatest sin is not infidelity, but mendacity. After all, the current front-runner in the Republican race is a twice-divorced adulterer. But Newt Gingrich has admitted his failings and repented before God (or, at least, James Dobson), while Mr Cain continues to deny. The real problem for Mr Cain is that the audience is growing less credulous. They believed him when he claimed to be presidential material, despite his foreign-policy flubs and overly-simplistic economic plan. They believed him when he said he wasn't a harasser, despite the pay-outs from the National Restaurant Association. And now they must believe him when he says he did not sleep with that woman, but merely texted and called her a lot. With that, he may have finally exhausted the trust of his supporters.

(Photo credit: AFP)