It must be difficult to be a political candidate, especially on a national level. You have hopes and ideals, but you're also only human. You get up in front of everyone and try to make your points, but all those skeletons in your closet keep opening the door and stepping out into the harsh light of the media cameras, and before you know it, everyone is digging for dirt, seeing just what else is there.

For political parties, there is a process called "vetting", where they ask the candidate to come clean and then try to come up with explanations ahead of time (should the dirt go public), or advise the candidate that they have a poor chance. With the latest allegation against Republican presidential candidate Herman Cain, one has to really wonder how forthcoming he was during that process.

Up to this point, he hasn't really helped himself with the non-personal issues. He fudged on the 9-9-9 plan to make a 9-0-9 plan for the poor. He is combative with the media (despite having a radio show in Atlanta for years). By all rights, his on-camera brain fart responding to a simple question about Libya should have been the end of it, but considering the weak competition, he still thinks he has a chance (and possibly does).

And now there's the allegation of a 13-year affair with another woman. Somehow this is going to be what does in his candidacy? When one considers that Newt Gingrich has left 2 - count 'em two! - wives for other women, and is considered the front runner, why would this be the revelation that does him in?

Perhaps it's cumulative. Considering the aforementioned brain fart, his incessant repetition of "9-9-9", his campaign finance irregularities, and numerous allegations of sexual harrassment, perhaps this is the straw that breaks the camel's back. It seems like it would have to be, as it is the least of his known and alleged transgressions.

To be honest - I don't really care if he had an affair. Bill Clinton did, yet he was a great president. I suppose the difference is that Clinton didn't initiate the consensual relationship and - given the allegations of Cain to use his position of authority to harrass women - Cain may have been the aggressor, or traded money or influence for physical favors.

It would also be less aggregious if Cain wasn't towing the Republican party line on being against abortion and gay marriage. When one is engaging in risky relationships while simultaneously claiming that gay marriage will destroy "regular" marriage, then the hypocrisy makes you a target.

But the bottom line is this: As a Democrat, I cannot (and/or will not) vote in the Republican primary. I have no say in who they nominate as the candidate to run against President Obama. On some level, I'd like the worst candidate possible to make it that much easier for Obama to win. Reality being what it is, though, one can never count on the intelligence of the voters, nor the honesty of the vote counters. A bad Republican candidate could still ostensibly win the election, and then where would we be?

So if there's any way we can influence the outcome of the Republican nomination, then I can feel like we are helping the country. Since we can't vote for the Republican candidate, the best we can do is use the tools available to weed out the worst of the candidates. The best tool for that is the media.

This is why the Cain affair matters. Even though I don't personally care about it, if it helps marginalize or eliminate his chances, then all the better. That will leave Newt, Romney, Paul, and Huntsman. Newt is the next target, and Paul is not going to get it. If we can make the contest between Romney and Huntsman, we can support Huntsman, and end up with a Republican candidate that we could grudgingly live with, should the worst happen next November.