Unfortunately, it is the press which largely defines the campaigns for president.

And as we all know, the American media leans sharply left, so we the people are often barraged with propaganda rather than reality.

The populist newspaper USA Today is a good example.

It is on a jihad against Donald Trump, posting negative page one headlines day after day.

Sometimes Mr. Trump deserves them but there is little balance.

Now it is certainly true that most voters do not rely on the media to make decisions.

But some uninformed Americans are swayed by what they believe is popular opinion.

So tonight I want to give everyday folks a voice commenting on the Trump campaign, which has taken some hits over the Khan controversy.

Marcus Smith who lives in Hagatna, Guam writes:

"Mr. O, Kirsten Powers is correct stating that you were overgenerous to Trump regarding his Muslim comments.  This proves you are endorsing him."

False, Marcus.  We endorse no one. 

I clearly told Kirsten that context is important when launching critical arguments.  And the press rarely provides context. 

For example, when speaking about Muslim women Trump raised the inequality argument which is certainly valid when discussing Islam.  While that cannot be applied to Mrs. Khan because we don't know her circumstance and we must be sensitive to her great loss, the general point was mentioned by me to provide context.

James Love writes from Norman, Oklahoma: "So we're down to a choice between someone who does stupid things and lies about them, as opposed to someone who says stupid things and tries to justify them."

That's kind of dark, James.  Both candidates are human beings with all the downside that goes with that.  The question is who will better run the country.

Patrick Newman checks in from Manchester, New Hampshire: "O'Reilly, you dropped the ball when Trump said he was viciously attacked by Mr. Khan.  Hillary Clinton was also attacked by dozens of people at the RNC and didn't respond."

First, I clearly pointed out how Mrs. Clinton handled the Pat Smith broadside. 

Second, there is a style difference between Clinton and Trump.  He confronts - she is far more measured.  Will be interesting to see how the corresponding styles play out in the debates.

Carol Rollo, Pensacola, Florida: "O'Reilly, after last night's interview with Trump, I finally realize what is wrong with him - he lacks wisdom."

Not fair, Carol.  The man is new to the political game and is under intense scrutiny.  Obviously, anyone in that position will make mistakes.  It is how fast he learns from the mistakes that will make or break his campaign.

Gina Mendoza writes from Miramar, Florida: "The Democrats are baiting Trump, hoping he will explode.  Why can't anyone in his campaign tell him that?"

I'm sure they have and Trump knows that as well - he's a shrewd man.  But it is discipline that defines how any candidate reacts.  Discipline will be the key to this election - and Hillary Clinton is a very disciplined candidate.

Summing up, the American voter is paying attention and I believe trying to vote responsibly.

But emotion rules the race - not a good thing.

And that's the memo.