How Did Blumenthal Do? It Depends What 'In' Is

Part of Richard Blumenthal's defense is that he meant to say he served "during" Vietnam, instead of "in" Vietnam and thus never meant to intentionally mislead people. How'd he do in his bid to regain voters' good graces?

• Pretty good: "It seems obvious enough that he'll survive this mess," writes Greg Sargent on his Plum Line blog at the Washington Post. His presser was well choreographed, probably with help from the national party. More importantly, "no Dems are cutting and running right now. They seem to have closed ranks behind him."

• Pretty bad: "I don't think there is any reason at all to believe Blumenthal 'misspoke,'" writes Daniel Foster at the Corner. "I think he lied, full stop."
• Somewhere in between: "No direct, intentional lies, wherein a lie is defined as a misstatement conveyed with the intention to mislead," write Marc Ambinder at the Atlantic. "But. ... Even if he did not intend to mislead voters about his service, it is incumbent upon him to make sure that he did not use his position to perpetuate a myth that enhanced said power. To me, that DOES make him responsible for being accurate about his service record and going out of his way to correct the perceptional."

(More Richard Blumenthal stories.)