Read other letters about this article

• Saturday, November 3, 2007 12:46 PM

  I do not like much Oprah and what she has brought into mass culture, but, she, sure, is persistent and physically strong (or was, as these kind of human features are not getting better with age, just vice versa).

  What is this article really about? Is it about how unpleasant over all was the impact of Oprah onto mass culture, or what? Oprah is a celebrity, who was made by the top federal politicians (I credit her (Oprah's) fascinating career mainly to Hillary Clinton) to promote what these top politicians at any moment need to be urgently promoted. So, she (Oprah) is doing it. When she-herself a short while ago, already being the biggest celebrity, decided to pick up Obama's candidacy for the incoming presidency over Mrs. Clinton's, her (Oprah's) name immediately disappeared from the title of the richest people, and even from the title of the richest females. She then, I think, changed her mind; at least, she changed her intentions to act, as the biggest Obama's fundraiser and promoter. It was the brightest confirmation that she is a kind of artificially made celebrity with the purpose, which I have explained herewith above. She, however, is certainly cute, persistent and physically strong. These qualities, unfortunately, are not becoming better with age, but, I think, that she still possesses all of them. Being strong physically, and having the good stamina, she, of course, was able to run marathon. Why not? She does not have, however, real qualities and talents to be such huge celebrity (or even celebrity at all) naturally. This is also true, and, therefore, she is, though gold plated, but still the puppet of our top federal politicians, like Bushes or Clintons.

  —author0072002 Read author0072002's other letters
  Permalink
  Flag
  Click "Submit Flag" if you feel this post is inappropriate. Explain why below if you wish.

  Cancel