"I've got to admit that if I had to say right now, who is more likely to be telling us what is closer to the truth — no stakes, no burden of proof, just who is more likely — I'd have to say her."

I wrote in the comments to a post that linked to a WaPo article and simply quoted Christine Blasely Ford's husband.

He'd said, "Her mind-set was, 'I’ve got this terrible secret.... What am I going to do with this secret?' She was like, 'I can’t deal with this. If he becomes the nominee, then I’m moving to another country. I cannot live in this country if he’s in the Supreme Court'... She wanted out."

I've reflected on why that quote tipped me to have the thought quoted in the post title and to want to reveal that. I've challenged myself: Am I a tool of the patriarchy? The husband says something, and now I believe?!

But I don't believe. I don't take anything at face value. I blog from a position I call "cruel neutrality," and I begin, always, with the prosaic awareness that people don't say everything they think, that they may sometimes outright lie but also almost always shape their telling of the truth, and that memory isn't a video recording that can be played but a mysterious process of the human brain, and that we are all blessedly human.

So I'll forgive all the commenters who misread what I wrote and fought me over the idea they got in their head when they read what I wrote. And let me quote a few commenters who were closer to getting what I was saying.

Henry said:

I've got to admit that if I had to say right now, who is more likely to be telling us what is closer to the truth — no stakes, no burden of proof, just who is more likely — I'd have to say her.

Your key phrase is "closer to".

Kavanaugh's problem is that he can't admit to anything. The most innocuous story will be seen as proof of her most serious allegations. "Closer to" could be "I was at a party and tripped and knocked her over and it was pretty embarrassing." That's closer to her story than "I have never done anything like what the accuser describes -- to her or to anyone" but it's still a long long long long way from "I'm an unsuccessful rapist."

Francisco D said:

I am going to give Althouse the benefit of the doubt.

She feels that Christine Blasey Ford is more likely telling the truth.

Althouse is describing an emotional reaction, nothing more. She is not indicating how she has processed the available evidence and what her thoughts on the matter are.

Walk don't run begins with something that isn't close to describing me at all, because it's about performing the role of juror after all the evidence has been presented, when I specifically hypothesized a requirement to suddenly answer a question when there has been no comprehensive presentation of evidence. At a trial, a burden of proof would apply and a defendant would be facing the consequence of a deprivation of liberty. That's not my hypothetical situation.

Anyway, here's how walk don't run begins:

I was a juror in a rape case some years ago. The case should never have never have been brought to court it had so many holes in it. During the deliberations that took a couple of days I outlined 7 aspects of the case that provided reasonable doubt. All of us agreed except one female juror who insisted that she had to convict the accused. Her explanation was that she had been raped and could not find her way not to convict the accused. The facts did not matter to her. It was all an understandable emotion. I think something similar is going on with Althouse.

But I see that walk don't run only says he/she thinks "something similar" is going on with me. It may be similar, but it's also different. I would never abuse the role of juror in a real legal proceeding. The question with Kavanaugh is whether he should be confirmed to a lifetime position as Supreme Court Justice, but even that is outside my hypothetical because that is what is at stake, and I said I'm telling you what I feel without regard to the stakes, and I'm only saying what I think is more likely.

Notice that I could have gone on to examine what I would do if there were never any more evidence than there is right now and it were my job to vote whether or not to confirm Kavanaugh. Nothing in my statement would prevent me from adding that I thought — given all the other evidence of his excellence and good character and the absence of other negative reports — what we've heard about what he may have done when he was 17 and his possibly false denials are not enough to justify a no vote.

Anyway, walk don't run goes on to say:

On the other hand, to give Althouse some slack, Kavanaugh seems just too good to be true - perfect scholar, perfect athlete, perfect coach, perfect husband, perfect father and perfect jurist. I wish he seemed more human with some failings and frailties like the rest of us. I don’t think Althouse likes or trusts that and that perfection strangely makes him less trustworthy in her eyes.

Yes, that's what I wanted to quote. Kavanaugh is vulnerable precisely because he's presented himself as good all the way through. Any hint of a stain wrecks his purity. He's the opposite of the man who nominated him, who's a crazy tie-dye pattern of stains. Nothing shows on that man. It's so annoying to his antagonists, who keep adding to the stain pattern and making it even harder to see any new problem. What has Trump really done that's so bad?, I ask myself from time to time. There are so many stupid things, like saying a hurricane is tremendously wet. I have trouble remembering what (if anything!) is supposed to be so awful. But with the wonderful paragon Kavanaugh, the accusation stands out like a red wine spill on the cream-colored carpet.