This is a rather odd one. Not that it is surprising an older man in his position has affairs with younger women on his staff. That seems all too common. The reaction, and especially the extent and nature of the analysis involved, is interesting and curious.
NOW's participation in the pontificating should be unsurprising. But, it was spectacularly silent regarding the liaisons of Bill Clinton, so one must wonder about its position in these circumstances. It seems that it may choose to express outrage carefully, on a case-by-case basis, with an eye towards politics, at least, if not funding.
The statements of the "experts" regarding whether he should or should not have gone public, or involved the police, and the exposure given to their views, prompts speculation regarding the extent to which we now judge not merely the acts of others (especially those of celebrities), but also the way in which they divulge, or try to avoid divulging, their faults. It isn't merely the conduct of others which merits our condemnation, it is the method by which they seek to mitigate the results of our condemnation.
There seems to be no limit to our self-righteousness.