I, like so many others here am not an Oprah fan. She is a peculiarly American product who, through sheer hard work, guts and a brilliant understanding of contemporary America, has beat the system beautifully. I thought Rebecca Traister's article was unfair and smacked of a type of liberal racism, unconsious or not, that can only see and accept African-Americans and other people of color, no matter how successful, through the lens of victim hood, poverty and racism. We see this trope writ large in the media every day. Bob Geldof, Bono, the late Princess Diana etc., all white saviours, who are depicted as heroic, saving Africa from itself. Notice how Bono is never seen interacting in any meaningful way with his African peers or with African scholars or writers, musicians, in African settings Bono has to be the white saviour non-paraeil, the great white chief who is seen as bringing hope and comfort to the dancing benighted villagers of the dark continent. Unlike Oprah, he is never required to explain himself by the liberal media and intelligensia, he just has to be, well Bono. Oprah tries to pull a Bono and all hell breaks loose. While I thought the launch of the school was vacuous and she should have had an Africa wide conference on education or something of the sort, I was delighted and amused that she broke the "white saviours" only rule. I suppose this is what must have disoriented Ms. Traister. Oprah who cleverly always has a subtext, a hidden message, sent a powerful message, if only for a day or so through the media, that wealthy, successful African-American celebrities can partake of the promotional-philanthropy-savior-of-Africa-marketing gig that has worked so well for Sir Bono and Sir Bob Geldof, Jolie and Pitt.

Thank you Alex Koppelman for exposing Dinesh D'Souza. It made for amusing reading.

But what on earth does the hapless D'Souza want now? A sinecure at George W. Bush's yet to be built mega-million library perhaps?

Why is Hillary's mistake so important in the scheme of things? No seriously, I'm trying very hard to understand. And in an effort to do so I keep getting drawn to those voters, pundits, columnists and bloggers who have weighed in on this topic with a particularly angry edge. I'm fascinated by the tone of the New Hampshire voter who somewhat sarcastically demanded that HIllary, "without nuance" verbally genuflect before him to apologize exactly in the way he wanted. I thought the women in that New Hampshire audience looked a bit uncomfortable, but may be I'm over interpreting. I was fascinated by the New Hampshire voter's free flowing angry riff, the sheer thrill of delivering that voltage of electric contempt that surrounds many a written or verbal thought about Hillary Clinton. Perhaps this is pure democracy in action but this almost personalalized will-to-power-over Hillary, and its expression in the endless discussion of this mistake is interesting. Oh, I know the arguments well, Hillary is calculating, cautious, cunning, callous. But all politicians are flawed in some way, yes, even Obama. American electoral politics is intractibly flawed. Even the most revered of Presidents are flawed. But for Hillary, that pol of pols, a level of idealized purity is so sought after that the perfect becomes the enemy of the good. Perhaps its the soft bigotry of high expectations.

I thought Hillary Clinton was impeccable. She expresses her thoughts in complete, precise paragraphs wrapped in complete sentences. Among her best moments was when she gently swatted all the other candidates healthcare plans by noting she had tried all variations before. A very elegant and subtle been there done that, before moving to tick off what she would do this time round with the benefit of experience. Another best moment was when she coolly and intently said she would attack anyone who attacked the United States swiftly, once she had the evidence. It was delivered in a way that left no one in doubt that she meant it and made her fellow debaters looking waffly. All told, the Democrats have much to be proud of with the candidates they are fielding. They are bright, earnest, solution-oriented. The Republican field are like characters out of central casting auditioning for "Ideology," the sequel to George W. Bush, in what looks like yet another disaster movie set to open in Fall 08.

From the way jolly old Roger tells it you would think Obama is running in one of them chocolate making European countries. Say Belgium, or Sweden or even England. Europe Mr. Simons does quiet elections. America was built on dissent, tea throwing, and all that expressive combustible stuff that made a superpower in under 200 years. And now after 200 years of noisy progress Obama want's to go all Continental on us and do quiet? C'mon Obama don't go all Euro on us with a quiet riot. Do it Oprah style, do shock and awe, do the Grand Canyon. Don't let these overly refined Beltway bound croissant eating journalists make you loose touch. Talk to Oprah, she'll set you straight.

Apologies, Corrected version:

From the way jolly old Walter tells it you would think Obama is running in one of them chocolate making European countries. Say Belgium, or Sweden or even England. Europe Mr. Shapiro does quiet elections. America was built on dissent, tea throwing, and all that expressive combustible stuff that made a superpower in under 200 years. And now after 200 years of noisy progress Obama want's to go all Continental on us and do quiet? C'mon Obama don't go all Euro on us with a quiet riot. Do it Oprah style, do shock and awe, do the Grand Canyon. Don't let these overly refined Beltway bound croissant eating journalists make you loose touch. Talk to Oprah, she'll set you straight.