Yesterday, Chatterbox queried several opinion leaders about whether this 1992 video shows George W. Bush in a state of inebriation. (Click here to read a transcript of Bush's giddy remarks, recorded at a friend's wedding.) The findings were posted, along with Chatterbox's own rather tentative conclusion, in this item. But since the Internet guarantees only that queries go out quickly--not that they be answered quickly--quite a few people failed to reply in time. What follows are additional comments that came in last night or today.

The question of whether Dubya got drunk in 1992 is of some interest because he has often stated that the key turning point in his life was his 1986 decision, on the occasion of his 40^th birthday, to quit drinking. Bush insists he was never an alcoholic, but his drinking was bad enough to put a strain on his marriage, so he stopped. In a March 1999 profile in the Weekly Standard, Fred Barnes quoted George W. making the Shermanesque statement, "I've never had a drink since then." Hence the excitement (mostly from Matt Drudge, who broke the story) about the emergence of possible evidence that Dubya fell off the wagon in 1992. However, today's comments mostly continue yesterday's trend: Respondents tend to conclude either that Dubya is not drunk or that it's impossible to tell.

Hendrik Hertzberg, writer, The New Yorker:

Drunk would seem too strong a word for what the video shows, but obviously he's a little tipsy, rather charmingly so. This doesn't bother me in the slightest.

My impression had been that Bush had "quit drinking" only in the sense that he had given up being a habitual and/or obnoxious drunk. I had been assuming that he sometimes has a glass of wine with dinner, maybe enjoys a cocktail once or twice a week, maybe even allows himself the pleasure of a pleasant buzz on special occasions such as weddings, bar mitzvahs, and inaugurations. I would rather have such a person in the White House than someone who's out and out abstemious.

If in fact Bush claims to be a total teetotaler, then I suppose he has a wee credibility problem. ... But I don't see how anybody was harmed by his having a few drinks at that wedding. What would be disgusting would be if he were a prohibitionist--if he believed in jailing people for possession of alcohol. That's why drug policy is the real outrage. Both candidates are horrible hypocrites on that one.

William F. Buckley Jr., founder, National Review:

My opinion is that Matt Drudge should be sent to the Survivor island for life.

Christopher Buckley, humorist:

Honestly! This smoking gun shoots blanks.