"Bill Clinton should have resigned"

In Clinton’s case, try getting a news organization to repeat anything negative about the Clintons until last week. Nobody would go against them.

Personally I don't think the court of public opinion is the place to judge whether someone should resign from an office they were elected for or to be impeached, and that includes Trump's accusers as well. Even if I was a conservative republican I wouldn't have voted for Trump just on his views he expressed about sexual aggressive behavior he felt entitled to indulged in.

Unless a person faced their accusers in a court of law and a jury judged against them, then at the end of day, we have accusations of alleged rape and sexual crimes. A voter will decide on their own whether the accusations rings true in their own minds and whether it will effect their decision in the case of Moore. There is something concrete to back up Moore's accusers as Moore was banned from a mall and that would probably affect some voters decisions on how they vote. I wouldn't have voted for him if I lived there in any case because one, he is conservative and two I believe in keeping Church and State separate and it is clear he does not. However, taking official actions based on just allegations, just seems wrong to me, however believable the accusations seem. Al Franklin admitted his wrong doing and apologized, his accuser doesn't even want him to quit. Trump has denied all the allegations and so has Clinton, none of these as far I know have ever been legally decided one way or another and as far as I know, a person in this country is innocent until proven guilty.

Yup — that's why it's regrettable that Broaddrick wasn't able to press charges in '78, back before Clinton was a national figure, a millionaire, and a hero to many Democrats. And really, it's the same story with any serial criminal; too bad they weren't apprehended and convicted earlier in their careers.

Clinton should be charged; Moore should be charged. I'm not the one who has to pass sentence, but based on the allegations, the punishment meted out should be more severe for Clinton, given the nature of the crimes he's accused of.

Personally, I have my own opinion, and in that court, I have little leeway for an adult man coming on to minors more than a decade younger than him.

Also, I really like how you phrased this in the worst possible way for Clinton, while you make Moore's behavior seem nothing more than innocent acts, based on poor judgment. Charged statements much?

I felt like I was accurate. Rape is an ugly word for a reason.

Are you blaming Broadrrick? There are many victims of rape, or of sexual assault, who do not press charges for any number of reasons. This is true of the victims of Bill Clinton, Roy Moore, Kevin Spacey and Weinstein.

If you are not saying that it is the victims responsibility to to press charges... then please say so.

The only point I am making is that Bill Clinton should be condemned along with these other perpetrators. Making excuses for him doesn't cut it.

I'm commenting on the fact that historically it's been difficult for women to press charges.

No one's "making excuses for him". Maybe you haven't noticed but, Team Clinton isn't particularly popular anywhere these days. It's silly to think that anyone would feel they had to defend Clinton — you're beating a dead horse.

There have been some valid points made regarding this topic. There is one other point that hasn't been made. From my memory over the past few decades the Republican party has always branded themselves as being the so-called morally religious party. That was primarily because the republican party was always aligned and linked together with the religious right. I don't remember the democratic party ever claiming themselves as being the so-called morally religious party.

Because the republican party have branded themselves as being the morally religious party, in that sense makes the republican party more hypocritical. I am not defending the actions of Bill Clinton, Roy Moore, Donald Trump, or Al Franken. I am just making a point, that hasn't yet been made, to add to the discussion.

I agree with RM. In the late 1970s, they branded themselves "the moral majority."

I’m sure the women raped and groped by Democrats appreciate the distinction.

Undoubtedly, to the same extent that those raped and groped by Republicans do. Your partisan bigotry is transparent.

Incorrect. YOUR partisan bigotry is on display, implying Republicans more guilty than democrats. Ridiculous. The crass politization of attacks on women is another attack on women. So very small.

Your logic is flawed. Neither RM nor I have said that Republicans are "more guilty," but rather, we have just pointed out the hypocrisy of those who claim to be morally superior, while demonstrating the same flaws as their opponents. Add that little bit of moral hysteria at the end of your post, and you demonstrate the transparency of your political bigotry once again.

I couldn't have said it any better. That is the precise point I was making.

And the dems are supposed to be pro-women, so both parties have their share of hypocrisy.

It might be more accurate to say that some members of both parties share in the hypocrisy. "Pro-women" is sort of meaningless — some of the policies pushed by the Democratic Party are supported by Democratic women but strongly opposed by Republican women.

Your point is well-stated, Olivier.

Well, another woman claiming Al Franklin inappropriately touched her at a fair while taking a picture, apparently with her husband taking the picture.

Here is the story(CNN)

Too bad about the new Franken allegation. The first woman is pictured in a spread today exhibiting the same sort of behavior for which she is attacking him.

Just because she would exhibit the same sort of behavior, does not excuse his own...