I saw Obama on his campaign trail during his congressional seat race against Bobby Rush, and from what i remember, i wholeheartedly disagree with the author's take on it.

After i heard him speak (at Northwestern Law) i came away extremely impressed and even remembered calling several family members to talk about the guy. He was definitely the buzz around campus and my only reservation about him was, "he must be too good to be true." As a law student at NU,people may argue that i am not necessarily the demographic that will swing the election, but that is silly. I was impressed by two different aspects of his personality during his congressional run. 1) He seemed very sincere, in a manner that is rare among politicians. Even when a politician cares about an issue, they usually come across as so polished and practiced that their sincerity doesn't come across, that was not hte case with Obama. 2) He was intelligent, and was able to handle difficult questions in a very easy and non-confrontational manner. Sometimes you realize he hasn't actually said anything of substance, but that realization takes some time and reflection. The immediate reaction is almost always, "he is smart, and i trust this guy."

The fact that he got 31% of the vote in a district where Bobby Rush was an incumbent, is an extremely impressive feat. I don't know for sure, but i am betting that Rush won his elections at a much more impressive margin ever since or before Obama's try at him.

There is no doubt that Obama's rise has been under a lucky star. His senatorial run was benefited strongly by a very weak republican field rife with an odd scandal, and the democratic crop wasn't particularly strong either.

And while i am still not decided on him as a presidential candidate, i disagree very heartily with the author's argument that Obama's charisma and star power are only recent developments in his political career. He had it against Rush, it just wasn't enough to beat him. (There was a NYtimes piece about Obama's Harvard Law presidency that also seems to cut against this author's point.)

What i do find most interesting is a developing story line that Obama may not play particularly well to african americans. Perhaps that is only a reaction to his meteoric candicay by

those who feel he hasn't paid his dues yet.

It is one of the more exasperating characteristics of liberals. You can't embrace someone who has succeeded in a meritocracy. You can't embrace someone who has assimilated into our mainstream. You can't embrace someone who doesn't possess your idea of the most politically correct bonafides. Even someone who shares very similar values. Uppity. Lost an election to an ex-Black Panther. Not Black enough. Your attitude smacks of arrogance, exclusivity, and class politics.

I'd rank "uppity" even higher than "articulate" in the list of Things To Not Say About A Twenty-First Century African-American Unless You Want To Sound Racist.

(And these are the Intertubes ... you can now say "smug" all you want, but we've got the screen caps of your first version for public consumption.)

What the hell is Salon.com doing? I read about your article about "Uppity" Obama who was as black as the Southsiders could hope for!

When did Salon.com become so racist? Or is it simply you hope the Lieberman in women's clothing, Ms. Clinton, will be the next president.

I never thought there'd come a day when I'd in any manner of comparison put Salon.com and FOX News in the same boat.

I'm very disappointed.

In nearly a decade of being a subscriber, not once have I ever considered terminating my Premium membership.

Until today.

Please, get off this trope -- is Terry McAuliffe ghost-editing Salon this year? Or is it Roger Ailes? Either way, we're getting Obama-bashing for our annual subscription fee, and I did not sign on for this.

For years, I have treasure Salon for its commitment to principled journalism, but this is the level of noxious subgenius blather I could hear every day by tuning into "Fox and Friends" and letting Steve Doocy spoon horseshit into my brain.

To use a Colbertian construct, you're on notice.

Obama has been called the Democrats' Ronald Reagan because he has the personality to sell the public on programs it might reject on their merits. (In Reagan's case, it was supply-side economics. In Obama's, it would be national healthcare.)

I don't know if anyone has already mentioned this or not, but does the author really think he can equate Reagonomics with universal healthcare in terms of their resonance with the people? Universal healthcare is not a hard sell that takes some extraordinary figure to shove it down people's throats. IT IS WHAT THE PEOPLE WANT.

“Thanks to everyone who pointed out the gaffe in the headline on the cover. We screwed up by using the word uppity -- and the error should have been caught before publication. We just fixed it -- the cover headline now matches the headline on the article, which was the correct version.”

Jeanne Carstensen, Managing Editor

So, the insertion of “uppity” instead of “smug” (bad enough) was a Salon editorial decision. You’re doing a heckuva job, Jeannie!

About the author of the piece:

www.tedmcclelland.com

read it and...

be unimpressed.

Oookay. So he matured from being an insufferable know it all to learning how to get along better with people once he realized that acting like an arrogant ass wasn't doing the job. So what?

I had to learn the same thing. One of my brothers had to as well, as have some of my friends. It's not that complicated; it's learning that being very smart is not enough to be effectual.

Maybe it seems unreal if you never went through the same process, but gained charm certainly doesn't have to be insincere. And I much prefer my brother's company these days.

You Salon Letter Writers just don’t get it. Didn’t McClelland tell you he voted for Obama twice?

He KNOWS Obama is NOT black!

It’s the black folks who will never vote for this uppity nigger…

Cosigned:

Debra Dickerson & Joel Chandler Harris