Some miscellaneous thoughts:

I personally do NOT consider a DUI conviction (or DWI, as we call it here in Minnesota) 24 years ago to be a big deal. If it happened to a friend of mine - especially if it happened only once - no way would it undermine my loyalty to that friend. But I also admit to a strong temptation right now to hope the information will be used to discredit Bush. I dislike him, I dislike his politics, and I hope he doesn't win.

It was a TACTICAL blunder for George W. not to reveal the information himself a long time ago. Probably the best time to reveal it would have been right after he had the Republican nomination locked up, possibly even before the convention. If he had, it would have been would have been overshadowed by all the hoopla of the convention, and it would have been forgotten by now. I understand Dick Chaney had some similar problems in his past and he DID reveal them, and it made hardly a ripple. Why didn't George W. follow his example?

As a MORAL matter, George W. should have revealed it even earlier, during his campaign for the primaries. As a rule, Republicans are less forgiving of such peccadilloes than Democrats are. No doubt they will stick by their man now, because he IS their man, their only hope against the Democrats. But if it had come out during the primaries, they might have nominated John McCain. Now the question arises, did Bush defeat McCain fair and square? If I were a McCain supporter, I would feel cheated.

The Gore staff is wise to keep silent. They don't NEED to say anything. The press will have its own feeding frenzy. Anything Gore or his staff could have said, the press, and the numerous "pundits" that appear on talk shows will say for them, and more. They will pick this thing apart, examine it from every possible angle, interview everyone who knows anything, or has anything halfway intelligent to say about it, or less than halfway. They won't stop until they have a bigger story to report. As of next Tuesday, the election itself, and the election results will be the bigger story. Therefore this story has a time limit of only about four days. After that, it will be practically forgotten (assuming some even more damaging information doesn't come out).

The question is naturally being raised of whether the Gore campaign leaked the news. It's possible, I suppose, but I doubt it. For one thing, why did they wait so long? Surely it would have benefited the Gore campaign a lot more if this information had come out a couple of weeks ago. Then the feeding frenzy would have lasted longer, and done more damage, and perhaps even more damaging information would have come out. Now, there isn't time.

Also, assuming the Gore staff had the info a long time ago, how could they have kept it out of the press until now? Even if the vast majority of Gore staff thought it was best to hold it back, remember, it only takes one dissenter to leak.

There is one thing that puzzles me: Why didn't some reporter discover this independently? No doubt there are hundreds of reporters who would give their eyeteeth to be the one who broke the story. During Monicagate, lowlifes like Matt Drudge and Larry Flynt were raised to fame and near respectability by the roles they played. Why weren't similar types digging up the dirt on George W.? I, for one, am not so interested in who leaked the news, as in, who kept it secret for so long, and how did they do it?

Maybe it just goes to show how little investigative reporting really goes on in this country.