(Image source: Politico)

BY ERICA COGHILL

His supporters are calling it a “high-tech lynching.”

Now -- the SuperPAC Americans for Herman Cain are fighting back against allegations the GOP presidential frontrunner sexually harassed three former employees.

“Now we’re getting the high-tech lynching of a beautiful man, Herman Cain..."

"...This is a circus, it is a national disgrace, it is a high-tech lynching for uppity blacks who in anyway dain to think for themselves and it is a message that unless you cow-tow to an old order, you will be lynched, destroyed, caricatured, rather than be hung from a tree.”

The ad draws comparisons between the allegations against Cain and those made against then-nominee Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas.

A contributor on MSNBC says without the Clarence Thomas controversy, Cain would’ve been finished by now...

JOYANN REID: “You have a set of people on the right that are a product of those culture wars of that era and who came out of that Clarence Thomas hearing ready to fight the left on behalf of any black person that decided to become a Republican and immediately attach them to Clarence Thomas.”

And The Washington Post’s Rachel Weiner suggests, the strategy just might work for Cain.

“The accusations that Thomas sexually harassed Anita Hill rallied conservatives around the judge, and he remains one of conservatives’ favorite justices.”

But Cain’s not getting a pass everywhere on the right. A post on the blog RedState suggests Cain and his supporters are wasting time blaming the messenger and the alleged victims.

“It has been reported, quite accurately, that he has been the subject of two sexual harassment settlements. Yes, we all know that this particular accusation has been abused but we also know that sexual harassment does take place. It is incumbent on Cain to come clean on the facts and circumstances and let the voters judge. If he doesn’t he deserves whatever treatment he gets.”

Thursday one of Cain’s aides told The Washington Post the candidate is considering suing Politico for the story. Short of details, a campaign official told the Post...

“This is likely not over with Politico from a legal perspective...”

But as Fox News’ RedEye reports, Politico hasn’t dished all the details of the story.

“Politico in this story had 6 sources and yet they still didn’t say what exactly Cain said to this woman that made her feel this way, it’s like at some point you’ve got to give details... We’re watching as viewers and saying, what is he defending himself against, what actually happened and why is this a huge story if we don’t even know what was said and who said it.”

That’s because the National Restaurant Association reached a 5 figure settlement with the women in exchange for their silence. But under what conditions could the Cain campaign sue? The Hill explains the possibilities...

“Cain could not sue Politico for violating [the confidentiality] agreement, because the news organization was not a party to it.… Cain could argue to a court that he had been defamed, but as a public figure, he would have to prove one of two things: that Politico knew the story was false and reported it anyway, or that it acted with reckless disregard for the truth — a difficult legal standard to prove.”

One of Cain’s accusers released a statement Friday and -- speaking through her lawyer -- says she wants to remain anonymous and doesn’t want to publicly recount any further details.