1)If he did it, he's vile. I personally think he's guilty, at least at first glance, after listening to some of his interviews, but will reserve judgement.

2)I find it interesting that the alleged victim didn't come out on her own, but that the Washington Compost hunted her down (38 years after the fact) and then paid her for the story right before an election. Why is that alarming? Because that's what they like to do to political opponents that are threats regardless of guilt or innocence. (Speaking of banana republics)

3)If we are correct on terminology, the Washington Post is factually incorrect to call him a pedophile, seeing that by definition a pedophile habitually goes after pre puberty children. The alleged victim was well past puberty. And to not use the word "alleged" is actually illegal in print. It's called libel. The media seems to have forgotten this principle and the law concerning themselves. I'd sue them if I was him and innocent.

4)He's still looking moore and moore like a dirty, disgusting little pervert, at least according to the media. Of course the media and the whole Hollywood environment are known for sex scandals themselves...

5)Does this now set a new standard that will allow the Bill Clinton sex scandals to be brought right back up and gone after in similar, rabid fashion...

6)It doesn't appear to be the right that wants to use violence against the opposition, but rather, the tolerant left.

7)Seeing this smells of a political hit job due to timing, I reserve judgement to that side too. Whether real or fake, these victims continue to magically appear right before elections. A little bit too convenient, don't ya think?

8)Sadly, if he is guilty, people in Alabama don't believe it because the media is corrupt beyond the pale. I did a debate a while back stating that there would come a day when the propaganda media would have the truth and no one would believe it, and it would be of no effect. Is this that day?