1. In an earlier post on whether John McCain's talking point on his standing in the 2008 election is true, I referred to a "poll of polls" taken in 2000, when, in fact, the poll of polls was taken in advance of the 2004 race. The post has been updated with additional information, although the conclusion still stands
2. Yesterday, I wrote what amounted, in retrospect, to a cheap shot at Peggy Noonan and David Brooks about how they would respond to a gussied up Sarah Palin as she learned more about the world and studied up on policy. I should have left these two writers alone; my implication was simply that the conservative intellectual elite might soften their views about Palin. Brooks and Noonan have demonstrated their independence from the herd, and I shouldn't have been so flip about it.
3. In various posts, I've meant to write: "If McCain loses" instead of "if McCain wins." This affliction, which I blame on trying to keep an open mind about the election, shows up whenever I try and write about the future of the Republican Party.
4. In an item about the McCain staffer who alleged she was beaten because of her campaign affiliation, I asked why it mattered without conveying any sympathy for the victim. My point still holds: if it had happened, it'd be a terrible crime, but its relevance to the election escapes me. It didn't happened -- she's recounted -- recanted, and it's still not relevant.
5. Many readers have asked me to apologize for my seeming obsession with Palin Couture. I won't.
| 
