Some more comments on the ongoing Kavanaugh matter:
* while Christine Ford's story was, overall, pretty persuasive, I am a bit skeptical of at least one detail she offered - that she had one beer. She might be able to explain why she could remember that - perhaps because it was her firm policy, until she was older, to only ever accept one beer at any party, for example. But given that her drink was before the traumatic event happened, there seems to be no reason to otherwise think why she should be able to remember that detail in particular. I think it's inconsistent with her otherwise very plausible explanation (much discussed on line by other people who have experienced something similar in terms of a specific memory burned into the brain arising out of a traumatic incident) as to why she can remember the details of the alleged assault itself so clearly.
* There has also been some discussion on Right wing sites as to whether her explanation of why the second front door was an issue is accurate - but that may also be a case of something that could have been better explained, but wasn't.
* I suspect, overall, that there is a mild degree of embellishment in the way she has set out her story. I don't think, however, that it really detracts from the firmness with which she insists that it was Kavanaugh and his drunk mate both in the room confining and assaulting her.
* Kavanaugh was really caught in a bind as to how to respond to the claim. His problem, poorly dealt with in his response, is that plenty of evidence has come out that he was a pretty regular, stumbling, aggro drunk as a young man, and good mates with another heavy drinker - starting before he was of legal drinking age. That makes it seem extremely likely that he could have suffered alcoholic blackouts on occasion.
As some have suggested, if his response had been one of disbelief that he could have done it, but begging forgiveness if there is any possibility that his bad, unwise and deeply regretted youthful drinking habits had led him to acting so badly, might just have got him out of trouble.
But he obviously saw that as a bridge too far - conceding that he might have come close to committing rape, even if drunk.
So instead, he went for the unconvincing denial that there is any way that youthful drinking led to this. What could have been sold as a warning to other young people to stay sober at parties was lost.
His position comes across as more embellished than that of Ford's.
* But even worse, his angry response to the Democrats means he sounds as if he is far too hurt by them raising this to ever be able to objectively deal with any matter which is of crucial importance to Democrats - such as with constitutional questions concerning a nutty and possibly incompetent Republican President.
* So yeah, I think he really did shoot himself in the foot in the way he chose to respond - and while youthful excess with drinking or other drugs would not normally be a disentitling event, if some women say that it led to some bad sexual behaviour, well, it is a problem (or at least, depending on how you respond).