stop talking about the black community in regards to Obama???!!!

I've yet to read evidence that Obama is not embraced by the black community. There was an article by Debra Dickinson or whatever her name is... but I read it as a provocative piece, not as an ipso facto done deal!

Is there even a black community vote? Many of the posters here (myself included), are black and ONCE AGAIN... we don't all march in lockstep to the same drumbeat.

As a matter of fact, I"m going to go out to the "black community" and stump for Obama today.

The nasty postings by subscribers that left me feeling hollow and disgusted made me cancel, but your coverage of Obama (beginning with Dickerson's reprehensible trashing) has been abysmal and--yep, I'm gonna say it--racist. I'm so glad I'm getting this shit for free now.

WTF?

Obama has two things going for him. He voted against the Iraq war and he was not implicated in either the Clinton Administration or the Bush administration. Personally, I have always like Gore best, and I wish he had been allowed by the putrid right wing to actually take his White House seat. But more and more I see the Bush administration as continuous with the Clinton administration in several contradictory but important ways. It's no coincidence that Hillary does not take attacking Iran off the table, nor that she voted for the war. It doesn't matter now how she changes her tune, she represents HOW the Clinton administration led to the Bush administration--by having no ideologically liberal principles. Gore is entangled in the same problem. Better try someone new who at least says the right thing. This said, go on Salon and bash him. These are very very minuscule bashes compared to the Rove effect. Break him in easy, but break him in!

Editors:

You are to be congratulated on your swift correction to your earlier description of Senator Obama as "uppity." The word "uppity" refers to blacks, or "negroes" as most white Americans prefer. As Senator Obama is, according to most right wing sources, actually white, the word "smug", which denotes white privilege, is much more appropriate.

Sincerely,

Bob Fagan

He voted against the Iraq war

How do you figure? Obama wasn't a US Senator until 2004; the vote was in 2002. In 2002 Obama was a state senator.

... and Salon has already told us that he isn't, so there's no reason for anyone to get upset.

Unless, you know, you object to racist language and denying the right of every human being the reality of their own identity and dignity.

This is still supposed to be a progressive website, right?

My mother and all her little church-lady friends are thrilled that Obama is running.

And they've never heard of Debra Dickerson, or Salon.com for that matter.

I can understand offense being taken at the "uppity" tag-line. Big mistake, probably deserving of an explanation by now, rather than a simple over-dub.

In substance I found the article written is a sort of self-aggrandizing detachment, a sort of "I saw this happen, then this...aren't I neat?"

Which explains the second flaw--this article has an aggenda--one that I feel speaks of Chicago political machinery. I know enough about politics to know, for sure, that Chicago machines are not what this country needs right now.

That, in itself isn't too bad, except it obscure's Obama's own stories about his past. Read his book and it's pretty clear. He hails from South Side Chicago because he found something there he never had before--a family. I found his own description of meeting his wife's family the most compelling part about "Audacity," and it goes a long way towards explaining him as a man--and a good man.

So, please, less machinery. In Obama, we have a "politician" who is an intelligent, interesting and moral man. Why not just listen?

If Salon's editors are too cowed at this moment to recognize that your comment is among the best, let me do so instead:

"the fact that so many of you are angry that anyone (read: anyone black) would take offense at the use of these terms, is a depressing commentary on your knowledge of black people's unfortunate history in this country."

Hear, hear.

The idea that anyone at Salon with any measure of editorial control could see fit to use the word "uppity" in or around an article discussing the racial qualifications of an African-American candidate betrays a fairly woeful ignorance of language and history. I'd like to hear a lot more from the editors about who made this choice and where the alleged "gaffe" occurred that allowed it to be published so prominently.

Rush basically said that Obama lost his earlier House race because the constituency of the Illinois 1st District thought Rush better represented them.

Then he said that the reason why Obama won his Senate race was because had to appeal to the constituency of the entire state of Illinois and not just the 1st District. Rush added that if he were to run for the Senate - against anybody - he would lose.

Finally, Rush said that all this talk about being Black or "Black enough" will be completely moot if Obama wins the Democratic nomination. He couldn't imagine a single Black person, including himself, who wouldn't vote for Obama in the general election because he wasn't "Black enough."

For my own part, I can't imagine any Liberal voting for a Republican, or just staying home come Nov. 4, 2008, because Obama has a big ego, or is smug, or wooden, or whatever.

Okay so I read the article, at the end sort of had a "what the fuck" feeling. Now I get it, this article is basically a backhanded compliment.

One the one side we have the author stating that a policy like universal health care is just as silly as Reganomics, really, we have billions to kill people with but healthcare for the uninsured, what a silly pipe dream! Really, even my pro-life republican brother wants universal health care or at least something for the uninsured who are employed.

Then at the tail end of the article, he does state that Obama learned from his errors, is now a better politician and hey, even I voted for him! All while all the cult of personality is still reverberating in my mind. After reading mainly insults I get a few paragraphs of praise, is it any wonder that smug, arrogant, braggart, too good for anyone, above it all sticks more? Negatives last longer in peoples minds than positives do. So even though I logically know that this article is not a hatchet job, the fact is the tone made me feel like I'm a dumbass for liking Obama because he's a shallow candidate, he's good looking and dresses well, speaks well, but I only like him cause I'm white and PC.

So he gets to insult Obama, by using the viewpoint of others early in his political career and associate him with a popular but crappy president who passed many policies that are still hurting us today; then congratulate him at the end for becoming "real" enough to have won his elections.

Thanks Salon.