Writing in the New York Times Week in Review, Sheryl Gay Stolberg revisits the George Allen image makeover campaign, including describing the noose he hung from a tree in his law office as a “lasso”:

One open question is what benefit a politician gets from apologizing. Senator George Allen, Republican of Virginia, for instance, has been criticized in the past for displaying a noose in his law office; he called it a lasso and said it was part of a Western paraphernalia collection. Now contemplating a run for the presidency, Mr. Allen was the lead Republican sponsor of the lynching apology – a wise move, said Scott Reed, a Republican strategist.

“Anytime you’re going to run for national office you make a list of who your attackers will be,” Mr. Reed said. “Anything you can do to mollify them or take them off that list is a smart move.”

But Ms. [Donna] Brazile, the Democratic strategist, was not so certain. “That all depends,” she said, “on what comes after the apology. They have to walk the walk after they talk the talk.”

Does anyone think the critics of Allen’s ugly racial history are going to be mollified? For example, here’s New Hampshire state Rep. Claire Clarke in the Foster’s Daily Democrat in Dover, NH commenting on an upcoming Allen visit to the state:

“I hope he will answer questions about why, according to the Washington Post, he hung a noose outside his law office or a confederate flag in his home,” Clarke said. “Does he think sponsorship of this bill absolves him of his past actions?”

If local politicians are already bringing up the issue in New Hampshire, home to the country’s first and most important presidential primary, Allen’s going to have problems.