he talks before really thinking. He has so much he has to say. So, if anything he says sounds bad, he doesn't really mean it.

"Trust me, I don't know."

It'd be a shame if something happened to her

Got it in one.

I can't believe how the media have failed to cover this story.

Last week it was WALL-TO-WALL coverage over "the deplorables" and Hillary's near-fainting spell.

Last night for the SECOND time Trump dog whistles assassination and the media are barely covering it.

(Just imagine had Hillary said, "Let's see what happens it him.&quot

This morning's CBS morning news featured the threat story, and also covered Trump's trickery with the press conference. They weren't pleased at all with either. Both stories are leading the front page of the NYT, as well.

I think it will get considerable coverage, over all.

and they haven't given it the kind of coverage one would expect had any other candidate in history made such dangerous comments.

Most Americans get their news from the three major networks, actually. Most of the cable news channels are all commentary, really, rather than straight news. Any of the three network news programs has far more viewers than all of the cable new channels combined. Together, they dominate television news, as they always have.

Only news junkies watch cable news, frankly. Most of them already have their minds made up. I'm far more interested in what is being reported on ABC, CBS and NBC, to be quite frank. They have more influence on undecided voters. Daily papers, too, play a role in people forming their opinions. Even though circulations are down, serious people still subscribe and read them.

And the Internet? Frankly, it's pretty much irrelevant when it comes to national elections. Again, only the news junkies go looking for news on the web, just like the cable news channels. We all love the Internet. But we don't reflect the typical voter who has yet to make up his or her mind.

That's my take on it, anyhow.