Peter Falk's character in the TV detective series "Columbo" stumbled through episodes saying it was the "little things" about the story that bothered him.

That's how I feel about The Jim Gibbons Story. You know the one. It's been holding sway on the news in Las Vegas since it broke last Sunday in the Review-Journal.

It is alleged that Gibbons, a Republican congressman and the odds-on favorite for governor, made uninvited advances toward a woman last weekend after a tipsy evening of drinking with her in a bar. She said he grabbed her, sex on his mind, and pinned her against a wall. He says she stumbled and he grabbed her arm, and that the only thing on his mind was preventing her from falling.

The day after the woman called police, Sig Rogich, Gibbons' campaign adviser, called me. As he rightly observed, "This is the kind of story that can cost an election."

As you can imagine, Sig and I have two different views about the merits of this story, but that's a sidebar. The Review-Journal published the story and I, obviously, think it was the right call. Police were called. A report was made. The incident was clearly news. Because of the nature of the allegations and the stakes involved -- no less than who might be our next governor -- it was best reported as quickly, accurately and thoroughly as possible.

It wasn't easy, because no one was anxious to talk. But a newspaper's first obligation is to its readers, whom I believe can decide for themselves what to think.

I've not yet made my mind up. The truth is unclear to me. But, as you would expect, I do have some observations and, like Columbo, some of the little details bother me.

First, let me get this out of the way: Rogich needs to have his political head examined.

By all accounts, Gibbons and Rogich were in a bar with women who were not their wives. It was crowded. Rogich bought drinks for his table and other tables. The waitress who served them characterized the table as "flirty and dirty." Rogich should have seen the negative potential and extricated his candidate. Instead, he bought rounds. Not wise.

Second, Gibbons says he was being "chivalrous" when he escorted a stumbling drunk woman to find her truck. That doesn't make sense to me.

Men of honor do not help women in that condition find their vehicle. They help them find a taxi.

Third, early in the campaign Gibbons made a big deal about his religion. He said it was a mistake that the congressional roster identified him as a Protestant. He said he's really Mormon. And maybe he is. But he wasn't acting like it last week. Are there two Jim Gibbonses?

Fourth, if this story stays in this he-said, she-said stage, it will not cost Gibbons the election. We just don't know what happened that night and, absent a videotape, those who planned to vote for Jim Gibbons will vote for Jim Gibbons. Besides, values voters have nowhere else to go.

Now, had Democrats nominated Henderson Mayor Jim Gibson, a fiscal and social conservative, to be their standard bearer instead of Dina Titus, this election would likely be over. While Titus is a person of character, her political views are too far out to make a values voter switch, no matter how unwise they suspect Gibbons might have been.

In the meantime, this is the last call for the next governor of the state of Nevada. Jim, you better make yours cranberry juice.

Sherman Frederick is publisher of the Las Vegas Review-Journal and president of Stephens Media. Readers may write him at sfrederick@ >reviewjournal.com