I think Neimon makes an excellent case: if you know this story is coming, leak a recreated/forged document that only a person familiar with the story could produce -- and pre-brief right-wing bloggers about how to attack the document. It did kill an irrefutable story (no one can contend that Bush didn't skip out on his duties in multiple ways on multiple occasions).

Also, if the document is false, another fact adds credibility to this theory: the CBS report didn't need this document at all. The entire story contained damning evidence without it -- personal testimony from people involved with Bush's actions who have no reason to lie, other documentation about Bush not showing up, and a notable lack of evidence that Bush did comply with his responsibilities (in a military where there would be a long paper trail for compliance with regulations). In other words, there is no motive for Rather, Mapes, or anyone trying to get this story out to forge this document. The only motive for doing so would be to plant useful evidence to discredit the story. (Again, it is very hard to ignore that bloggers knew to focus in on this document the moment the story aired.)

But to get bogged down in this document, as others point out, is to work within the wrong frame. The point of the story was that Bush was an irresponsible person who avoided serving his country -- and that story has not been refuted by anyone. Why should this one document have any significant role in the larger story? Had a document appearing to be from 40’s and outlining the Holocaust been found to be a fake, would that have any bearing on the truth that Germany murdered millions? Don't be played. The biggest weakness of the reality-based community is that they are so willing to accept the frames of the right that are constructed with the intent to obscure reality.

[On a side note, a simple comparison of the 60 Minutes "forgery" with another forgery shows us how unscientifically we apply public analysis. It is on the public record that the President of the United States cited forged Nigerian documents that suggested conclusions 180 degrees from what turned out to be reality, yet no official inquiry looking into this was carried out (instead a CIA operative was outted). Yet a document presented by a mere reporter that is in agreement with the still-intact public record continues to be viewed by many as somehow more serious. We are letting ourselves be played.]

All those words, and still only a horse race story.

The 65 percent of the public that opposes our warring ways -- aka the majority -- need to apply pressure on the top three candidates who have claimed they will likely have troops in Iraq at least until their presidency is over. Do you remember the outrage when Bush, already in his second term said this? And now the potential liberal candidates are saying the same thing before they even have the nomination!

So it looks like the public (and its non-war majority) will have 2 pro-war candidates to choose from in November 08 -- how sad for democracy. (Yes, they say they oppose the war but will keep it going -- like Bush, who calls war a "last resort" while choosing it first.)

We must apply pressure. We cannot fall for the old line: "give them a pass, we need to treat them gently so they can win." Wrong. We need to shape them up so they represent us -- and then they can win. In fact, even if it were true that the only way you could win was by turning your back on the majority, that would signal all the more our need to get to work. There is no democracy in such a situation.

While I will vote in the Democratic primary, the winner almost certainly will not represent me. So I will either not vote in the general election or vote for a third party or write-in candidate.

I'm done voting for people who actively work against my interests, even if their opponents are more skilled at working against my interests. This is a democracy, in theory, and the fact that I hold a majority view on issues like war, government spending, health care and the like, yet still have no one who represents me is a situation that I can no longer enable.

For me, it's time to cut off the national Democratic Party and start working on taking over the local parties.

Jeez, we all complain that fundraising and polls are all the news focuses on and yet here were are at Salon: behind in polls and money, what does that mean?

Had War Room covered Edwards policy positions at all along -- or for that matter Clinton's and Obama's -- a little horse racing might be okay. But except for a clear partisan interest in the Democrats over the GOP, I can't see much difference between the War Room coverage and the msm; it's often the least useful information for voters -- who's ahead, who's behind, and how something having little to do with how they'd govern will affect their position.

Certainly the hormones are a good candidate, as is the public commerce in the sexual. But an honest political analysis can also suggest some factors.

For example, the rise in global war, famine, disease, climate change, democratic failure and financial instability surely has altered the collective insecurity of our species, perhaps enough to distribute a stress that triggers a natural response: reduce the wait for reproduction.

So many things have changed so radically in the last half century that not only may it be impossible to account for all factors in advanced female development, it is impossible to predict what future triggers might get pulled.