George,

I would like to apologize to Lloyd Snook and your readers for confusing where I had only hoped to clarify.

There is no excuse, except the perhaps Clintonesque, beyond being on a high doseage of serious narcotics and a funky lap-top that I can barely navigate.

I wrote "the truth of the case that Lloyd". I meant "the truth of the case now that Lloyd."

What is the difference? To me, a lot. I was trying to say that now that Lloyd is involved, the co-chairs (Rus & Lloyd) can simply poll all the candidates regarding any candidates possible involvment in the rumor. I think that is an important difference. None of the candidates should complain.

Lloyd writes an excellent defense of his involvment through endorsement. I am persuaded. Rus is free to do whatever he likes.

In the old days, party chairs were able to avoid commitment by running for delegate in their precincet as uncommited. Often times, the majority of the Carver Precinct was uncommitted. That was a problem with the old system in that it allowed for closed-door dealing in uncommitted slates.

Again, I apologize.

John Conover (electronic mail, February 20, 2002)