If you're hungry for more on the Senate race other than what made Mark Wilson join the Cantwell campaign, see this mid-summer summation by Randy Stapilus at Ridenbaugh Press and this response from Patrick at Respectfully Republican.

At Sound Politics Eric Earling has his take, too, and says he's noticing a similar theme in recent press coverage.

But, if you're still trying to figure Wilson out, check out The Left Shue. Chad Shue, in many ways Wilson's most vocal supporter, recounts his conversation with Wilson.

Probably what matters most for the campaign is that Shue says he'll vote for Cantwell in November, even though he says he "will have little reason to vote in the Democratic primary."

He has one clear disagreement with his friend Wilson: "I have not seen the shift in Cantwell that Mark alludes to in his statements of new found support."

Shue said Wilson told him that he asked Cantwell the big war question, "how would you have voted on the war if you knew then what you knew today?" Wilson said Cantwell told him "that under those circumstances there would not have been a vote." Wrote Shue:

I felt concerned that I had to point out to Mark Wilson that the answer only dodged the question and did not say how she might vote in the future (think Iran). ... He said that he would continue to press her to be clearer on the subject. Mark was not able to reassure me on the issue of the Patriot Act and if he felt Cantwell "got it" on the question of civil liberties. He certainly did not have any answer on her "Free Trade" votes (as recently as last week).

Andrew Villeneuve has his own take on whether Cantwell has evolved on the war. He quotes my post from yesterday where Cantwell said she hasn't changed her position but that recent statements and votes have been a "a reaffirmation for people of what I've been saying."

He argues she has changed.

While what Senator Cantwell said is true, it's also true that her position on Iraq has been slowly evolving over the last few months and even years.

How can both those things be true? But no matter, because Villeneuve says Democrats can hardly be held responsible for their war votes:

Democrats were trapped in a hostile environment and presented with false information, included cherrypicked intelligence from the Bush administration which was extensively propped up by the traditional media during the prelude to the invasion. (For more on this, see Eric Boehlert's new book ..."Lapdogs: How the Press Rolled Over For Bush".

The right wing used its powerful political infrastructure to intimidate many Democrats into supporting the war authorization. Cooperation from the traditional media certainly helped to seal the deal.

UPDATE: Andrew has updated his post with a response to my question.