I am with pustelnik - there should be "a few diabetic role models that are not athletes or musicians". There was a governor of Louisiana, I think, with type one diabetes, but - judging by some former holders of that office - that is a dubious role model for anyone (no offence to him!).
I enjoyed the discussion in the comments - would such an outpouring of opinion be even remotely likely with the appointment of a British Law Lord? Can you name one? I cannot.
On non-diabetic issues: Given the anguish the abortion issue still causes in the US (reflected in comments to this blog) it is strikingly cool of Obama according to this piece - not to have asked about it when he interviewed her!
For me - and any other parent of a type one diabetic child - the most fascinating and uplifting fact about Judge Sotomayor is not her childhood fascination for Perry Mason or her Hispanic roots, but the fact that she contracted this illness at the age of eight and is now 54, apparently healthy, and obviously successful!
There was some perfectly legitimate discussion of the issue before the nomination, but generally an acceptance it seems that the issue is not an issue.
Her nomination, it could be argued, is a pro-life decision in the sense that it accepts that life is life and is to be celebrated and lived for the moment, without huge thought about the long-term future.
The battling cousins lived up to expectations I thought.
Both addressed real issues and both have real passion for their positions - if Dick Cheney seriously believes that thousands of people might die as a result of the new administration's mistakes then he has an absolute duty to speak out, not just a right.
Mr Obama took the high road again - calling on Americans to avoid a soundbite-dominated debate, think about the problem and come up with rational solutions. That is Obama.
His point about the Supermax prisons - nobody has ever escaped from one so what is the problem using them for Guantanamo detainees - will need to be answered by those, including the FBI Director, who have talked of vague "dangers" that lurk.
On the wider claim - that Guantanamo has created more terrorists than it ever housed - I think the president has a more difficult case to make. As Mr Cheney pointed out, the 19 9/11 hijackers acted in a pre-Guantanamo world. But there was no shortage of grievances real, or (as he would have it) imagined.
In researching my book on anti-Americanism, I came across plenty of US haters who would mention Guantanamo in a list of bellyaches. But only in a list - and the list, sans Guantanamo, is still long.
It will be fascinating to see who wins this tussle: will any Guantanamo prisoners not subject to trial be kept in the US for the rest of their lives? I wonder what local communities where all manner of folks have been sent to serve their sentences would make of this? Including some (Zacarias Moussaoui and Richard Reid among them) who have been tried and convicted and will never be heard from again.
A new poll and the president's personal foray into abortion politics continues to reverberate around the nation.
Personally, I wonder whether the pro-life moniker is losing some of its accrued meaning. I went to Harvard this week to visit a man who must rank as one of the most humane Americans of his generation: the type one diabetes researcher Douglas Melton.
Is he pro-life? I think he is. Senator Orrin Hatch does.
I suspect most Americans would agree...
A reasonable claim can be made that President Obama's approach to health is mirrored in his approach to the tribunals at Guantanamo.
In both cases he does not want to be where he is, but is willing to accept the facts and work with them.
On healthcare, this president would like - in his heart of hearts - a UK or Canadian system. He has said as much: that if he could start from scratch he would choose "single payer".
But he says as well that such a system is out of reach, unrealistic. So he compromises.
And so with Guantanamo: of course he would like to try these folks in the civilian courts. But he cannot. So, again, compromise.
Neither of these positions is that of an ideologue. Or of a politician who is willing to go down in flames for the cause if the cause is just.
Nothing matters as much as this.
The healthcare battle will shape America and impact the lives of everyone here, but it will also shape world perceptions of America, which are as much affected by US domestic foibles and strengths as by foreign polic. In fact more so, I think.
Today happens to be "pump night" at the Washington Children's Hospital. Newly diagnosed Type One diabetes patients (my son included) will be told about the benefits and disbenefits of the various pieces of technology that can deliver insulin into their bodies on a regular basis.
There are - as ever in America - choices to be made. And - as ever in the American healthcare system - huge prices to be paid, though not necessarily by those doing the choosing.
In the UK, meanwhile, a friend writes to say that in his local health authority there is no pump night, because there are no pumps: the local decree is that children can inject themselves regularly (and cheaply) for exactly the same clinical benefit.
How are Americans to make an informed and sensible choice? In particular, how are they to get to grips with a system that seems so utterly devoid of cost controls? And what about the risk of crimping future medical progress by crimping profits?
Some British doctors are issuing warnings to the Obama Nation about what reducing healthcare expenditure actually could mean.
On the other hand, some Americans are willing to be arrested for the cause of socialised medicine.
I am glad Sam has the right to a pump. On the other hand, I can see the benefits of keeping costs down and clinical benefits in the driving seat. On the other hand again, I know that a wealthy person in the UK will simply get the damned pump anyway and where is the fairness in that?
Barack Obama will need every ounce of his steely self confidence to persuade the nation that this step - whatever it turns out to be - is wise.
My colleague Bahman Kalbasi of BBC Persian TV points out that one of the moderate candidates in the presidential elections in Iran - Hossein Mousavi - is campaigning with his wife alongside him.
This is a truly landmark event, since for the last 30 years it has been unusual even to see the face of a presidential aspirant's wife, let alone hear her voice.
She - Zahra Rahnavard - is being called the Michelle Obama of Iran, though I note from the picture that her arms are well covered.
To those who scoff at the Obama approach to the outside world - this is at least a partial answer.
He (and she) might change the nature of the game, unleashing forces that no amount of "axis of evil" rhetoric ever could.
Back in England on a flying visit, I notice a real kickback against the initial surprise, not to say horror, over the Government's decision to ban Michael Savage from the UK thus giving the publicity-seeking chap exactly the oxygen he seeks.
He is not without his supporters back at home and this is the mainstream view in the popular press at least in the UK but this riposte raises the interesting issue of what limits on freedom of speech are reasonable.
Americans are not allowed to yell "fire" in a crowded room, but the Times piece is quite right - they have much more freedom of speech in most other areas.
The one that always strikes me is discussion of court cases replete with speculation about whether the accused is innocent.
Which nation is freer - the nation that protects minorities from abuse or the nation that lets a thousand voices scream?
General Jones works standing up. So did Lord Palmerston. So did Donald Rumsfeld. I am going to try it in the hope that people respect and fear me. Not that the General seemed the remotest bit interested in conflict with anyone.
The Supreme Court nomination is not a big deal in terms of changing the balance of the court - it won't - but it might say something wonderfully interesting about the Law Professor Presidency.
Here are my suggestions: (bear in mind they don't have to be lawyers)
John McCain
Tony Blair (visiting)
Oprah Winfrey (seriously: empathy)
The Governator (he is coming to the end of his term and has a mind to match his muscles.)
The big question this week in Washington is the safety of Pakistan's nuclear weapons.
Pakistani President Asif Ali Zardari comes here on Wednesday, and the White House is looking - it seems to me - for something a little more certain than previous airy assurances from the Pakistanis.
That is the impression I got from a conversation with the National Security Adviser James Jones:
In order to see this content you need to have both Javascript enabled and Flash installed. Visit BBC Webwise for full instructions
Hello, I'm 
© MMX~RS~q~RS~~RS~z~RS~23~RS~)