I’ve been tossing most of these tidbits into Headlines but here’s the obligatory round-up post. First, something that wasn’t in Headlines only because I just saw it: Turns out my assumption that Bialek is living comfortably in Chicago, supported by her corporate-executive fiance, and has no apparent motive to cash in might be mistaken.

Sharon Bialek’s fiance — who said he is her primary source of financial support — is unemployed and preparing to file for bankruptcy, according to Lake County court documents reviewed Tuesday by the Tribune. And in Cook County, lawsuits show she has been targeted by creditors who claimed she owed them thousands in unpaid rent, personal loans and credit card bills…

Her fiance, Mark Harwood, told the Tribune on Monday that Bialek did not have any current money problems. Harwood, who records show recently left his job in the medical equipment industry, said he supports her financially so she can stay at home with her 13-year-old son.

In court proceedings between Harwood and his ex-wife, Patricia, her lawyers stated last month that Harwood was unemployed and preparing to file for bankruptcy. Harwood could not be reached for comment Tuesday.

Duly noted, but if she’s looking to make a buck by talking to the Enquirer, I don’t understand why she’d reveal the sordid bits of her story about Cain at the press conference. She could have teased them by saying something vague (e.g., “my encounter with Mr. Cain wasn’t so much a case of sexual harassment as sexual assault”) and then let the media come running with its checkbook. And Allred, of all people, would have known that. Why give away the golden goose?

Meanwhile, Ed already mentioned that Kraushaar filed a separate job complaint when she worked for the INS in 2003, but here’s a little more from ABC that emerged after he published his post:

Kraushaar’s former supervisor at the INS, who was named in Kraushaar’s complaint, characterized the 2003 complaint to ABC News as “frivolous,” and said Kraushaar may have been offered a few extra sick days as compensation.

The supervisor alleged that Kraushaar had a “poor work ethic.”

The supervisor, a self-described Democrat, decided to speak out about Kraushaar’s complaint because of “doubts about her credibility.”

Maria Cardona, who also supervised Kraushaar at INS, told CNN that Kraushaar was an “ideal employee,” and said her credibility was “beyond reproach.”

“She was the utmost professional, one of the hardest working individuals I have ever known,” said Cardona, “the consummate team player.”

Kraushaar later told ABC that Cain is, er, a “monster.” Two serious job complaints in the span of four years is odd; the fact that she wanted a fellowship to Harvard as part of her deal with the INS is suspicious; and Ace is right that her objection to a mundane “men and women are like computers” chain e-mail as part of an unrelated work complaint makes it sound like she’s taken a kitchen-sink approach to these things. But if she’s a serial complainer looking to shake down her bosses, where are the complaints before 1999 and since 2003, while she’s been working for the IRS and the Treasury Department? Surely someone must have looked at her askance once over the past eight years; why didn’t she try to wring a few vacation days out of that if this is her M.O.? Or has the media simply not found those complaints yet?

Food for thought as we gear up for debate night. Over at Rasmussen, 51 percent say it’s at least somewhat likely that the charges against Cain are serious and true.