Rio was almost certain to get this Olympics. It is a world-class city from a continent which has never hosted the Games.

That Chicago was considered -- by bookmakers, at any rate -- to be neck-and-neck with Rio is a credit to the work Daley's team did and the cachet of Obama. That Chicago lost has everything to do with Rio and the desire to put the games in South America (and Brazil's up-and-coming global economic power), and little to nothing to do with Obama, Daley or the recent beating death of a Chicago teen.

I haven't seen the actual vote totals, but here's what I suspect. There were always going to be some tankers for Tokyo and Madrid. Those folks were never going to vote otherwise. The vast majority of the remainder were really only considering Rio and Chicago, and on the first vote they decided it was Rio. That left only the tankers, which is why Chicago bowed out first.

Good for Rio. As a native of Chicago, I was torn: civic pride and a realization that the Olympics does bring economic stimulus (even if they do also bring corruption and cost overruns in most cases), versus a sense of fairness and a fear of all the things that can go wrong when a city wins the Games.

Chicago did not need the Games for validation. Nor, I suppose, does Rio (nor Madrid or Tokyo, for that matter). All four cities are world-class destinations, and will remain so, with or without 2016.

And of course, each person who does read the bill will understand it differently.

Note that the 1st Amendment is only 45 words, the 2d is 27 words and the 4th is 54 words, yet these words, and what they actually mean, have been argued over for 200+ years.

"Will is either profoundly ignorant of economics, or being disingenuous"

I posit that these are not, perforce, mutually exclusive notions. Which reminds me of my perorations on the designated hitter and the infield fly rules, respectively, and although they involve an entirely different subject matter, bear importantly on the instant topic.

-- G. Will (imagined)

This should come as no surprise to those listening to the right for the last six or seven years.

They believe that their vision of America is the only right and true vision. Therefore, anyone who does not share their vision -- of an America steeped in rugged, root-hog-or-die individualism, an utterly free-market haven for rich white men armed to the teeth -- must in fact hate their America.

The logic is impeccible, if you simply accept their starting premise. However, as any logician will tell you, a flawed premise will doom your result every time.

"American" is a "race" unto itself: it knows no color, no ethnicity, no religious affiliation. Each person claiming the title of "American" owes allegiance only to the founding principle that all men are created equal, and that they are therefore free to believe and speak as they wish with neither retribution nor encouragement from their government.

Deepest sympathy & heartfelt condolenes to you. Over the years, your personal writing style has engendered a feeling that we know you better than most columnists. I hope that the many wonderful memories of your mother ease your grief.

Order online today at Fox News:

"Support the (white Christian) Troops"

I suppose I could say they should be ashamed of themselves, but I would also suppose that ship sailed long ago.

Oprah is not a journalist, she's the TV equivalent of the features section. That simple fact seems to have been missed by many.

Combine that with the fact that Oprah was a huge and vocal supporter of Obama, and you must realize that there's no way she could have hit Palin hard. It would have been portrayed as a partisan ambush.

I'm not trying to defend Oprah so much as to splash a little reality around.