...the typical politician's support simply doesn't mean that much in moving voters.

That's right. The related opinions of professional colleagues is irrelevant to Americans: all they care about is what a (formerly obscure) black preacher says. Voters also don't care about, or don't understand, issues like the economy, national security, health care, unemployment, or any of the other things they consistently rank among their top concerns. Americans, when they say they care about something, are only lying to make the poor pollsters feel better.

Or so that's what hack "journalists" like Alex Koppelman would have you believe. If only to justify their own juvenile, racist obsessions.

In reality, it depends on who is giving the endorsement. Of course most Americans don't care about whom the Senator of Kentucky chooses to endorse. But Kentuckians care. Folks in Tennessee might as well, if the pol has name-recognition there.

And of course if the pol in question has national name recognition, people might care about those opinions. It's no guess who former President Clinton would endorse in this race, but were his wife not in the running, people would care to know who he supports. (Which is why folks clamor after Gore, Edwards, and other to reveal favorite.)

Note that this isn't a story: it's really just a post which justifies Alex's obsession with Reverend Wright. When asked why there are few, if any, substantive items in the War Room, Koppelman will lean on his unsupported, unsubstantiated claim that "people don't care about those sort of things."

Read Glenn Greenwald. The same childish, devious machinations which appear to motivate editors at TIME and other publications are apparently the same tactics promoted by Joan Walsh and her stillborn spawn, Alex Koppelman: racism disguised as reporting, bad reporting excused by apathy.

Narcissists don't like other narcissists. This explains the enormous, racially-tinged venom Joan Walsh has for Wright.

Of course, like all narcissists, Joan doesn't think she has a problem - it's other people who are the problem.

There's Joan Walsh, not leading the pack but near the front, holding a torch, shouting for someone to get a rope and take care of that uppity black preacher!

I guess if he wasn't shot at by snipers while passing legislation, it doesn't count.

My favorite thing, Koppelman, is how you analyze every word out of Obama's mouth - even words that don't come out of his mouth - but haven't the slightest interest in parsing or otherwise examining Clinton's words.

The most amazing thing about hacks like you and Joan Walsh is the deep denial that allows you to continue considering yourself as "principled" or even a "journalist," when all the while you're no better than blind pigs who cannot keep their dulled snouts from the offal.

Next Joan Walsh will proclaim, "Separating himself from Wright is all well and good. Now Obama needs to explain why he was sitting in church for twenty years listening to all this. If it's so 'antithetical' to who he is, how did he sit there and listen for twenty years?"

How do I know what Joan will write next? It's the Republican and Clinton campaign spin today, so it will be Joan's column next week.

MoveOn.org is not a "527 group." MoveOn is a "501(c) group."

Their status does not, and will not change. It is not "variously" other classifications: as detailed in the US Internal Revue Code, MoveOn is a 501(c) organization, significanlty different from a "527 group," though both are created by the same US law (26 USC 501 and 527, respectively).

At this point I wonder whether I should correct your ignorance by detailing the differences or simply avail upon you to investigate for yourselves, think for yourselves, elide your own conclusions through thorough investigation.

I think I'll go with the latter, even if it's something My Fellow Americans aren't accustomed to doing any more.