At least I'm starting to understand. So this is a real story? Okay then I'll back off a little.

I'm still not clear why, or how, but okay. Again I don't see a lot of swing voters (especially in Indiana and North Carolina) sitting around reading Salon on a Monday night, worrying about this crap. I honestly don't.

The results in Pennsylvania showed it didn't really hurt him. And I'm sorry I don't see how Wright's actions today are so much worse than the initial tape, where they actually showed him delivering these fiery sermons, but again whatever.

To me the mainstream media is still WAAY over-hyping this story. I guess we'll have to wait and see.

But I'm sorry I don't see this swinging a bunch of swing voters in Indiana (I'm from the Midwest) and North Carolina (which Clinton has pretty much already given up to Obama).

So, at a certain point, I have to ask what is the point of all this? And given that they're bombing the living hell out of the Green Zone in Iraq, which is supposedly the safe and secure area where many of our troops and diplomats are stationed, I seriously question why in the world they're covering this to the degree they are?

One story, maybe. Two, okay. We're up to three and four now.

Geraldine Ferraro was a firestorm too. I didn't see that sink Hillary Clinton's campaign. I'm sorry but the press gets way too much up in arms over this crap.

People in Pennsylvania voted precisely the way they would have with or without Wright. (Frankly polling shows Obama picked up votes after his race speech.)

Guess what? They're going to do the same thing in Indiana and North Carolina. So if the press wants to feel self-important and run the same thing ad nauseum go for it. But I still think, if they're this bored and desparate to cover something, the attention would be better spent on Iraq or healthcare when the mother with 2 kids, or the father watching 3 kids while his wife works a double shift, would actually look up and pay attention to the news.

Look you're taking a chance either way. And I say good.

The last two times around the Democrats took NO chance, they ran the "safe" candidates Kerry and Gore, and lost.

So I just don't see it. Either candidate is taking a chance. Hillary, to me, is the riskier one.

Judging by the recent behavior of the superdelegates, who seem to be moving increasingly towards Obama, they agree. But either candidate is taking a HUGE chance.

Now if Edwards were still in this race I could see having the discussion. But he's not. Either one of these two candidates is taking a chance either way, so if you're uncomfortable with risk it's not the election for you.

Hillary Clinton is one of the most polarizing candidates we've ever seen. Her own supporters have trouble telling you how she'd get over 45% of the vote. Virtually NO independents would vote for her, the huge increase in Democratic turnout would be blunted, and Obama's massive fundraising machine which is unprecedented is out the window.

The electorate has been swinging, for the last 25 years, increasingly conservative. The only way to counteract this is with new voters. Obama gets the new voters and a segment of your entrenched base which is VERY loyal and ALWAYS comes out for the Democrats (African Americans.) There's no reason to upset this.

Now I'm sure Clinton supporters can make opposing arguments, but the point is we're taking a chance either way. Don't let them fool you.

I still fail to understand why today is suddenly "explain everything on Wright, now, now, NOW! even though we don't know if any real voters actually care" day. But, okay. It seems like something Joan's been mulling for a while based on her previous Wright story posted over the weekend.

It also seems to be something largely fed, judging by Joan's own comments on her "I was wrong about Wright" section, and based on the fact she got over 350 negative comments on her first Wright posting. That's what we call sour grapes. And piss-poor journalism.

Again when we say trolls, it's because most of the people running around yelling "through" and "done", as they have and been wrong since before Iowa, are Republicans. Hence, ignore them.

You're so right Glenn. Thank goodness all Americans are so safe and secure that we can afford to waste our time on matters like this.

And thank God we have a press that is so enlightened that it's able to drop everything when the supposedly most secure section of Baghdad which is supposed to be under American control is exploding.

And thank goodness no one has real healthcare issues to deal with. Not in a country like ours with such an obviously wonderful healthcare system.

And they wonder how the Romans watched Nero fiddle while Rome burned? We're in a lot more trouble than I thought we were if this is really what they're choosing to focus on.