It seems to me you have two intertwined issues here – one being a largely insubstantial and shabbily inconclusive piece about Obama based on one reporter’s limited encounters with him from many years ago and the other being Salon’s incessant need these days to position every article it publishes with as much “click-getting” bluster and controversy as possible. The combination of “so-what?” journalism with “look at this!” editorial positioning is disastrous.

Whether or not the inexcusable use of the word UPPITY was a “mistake,” the point of the editorial intro to the article remains the same – Salon’s just trying to whip up the fires over this absurd and distracting question of whether Obama is the Great Black Candidate or not. Bottom line: it’s getting folks to click. But what a colossal waste. Salon (once a beacon of truth in a blinded media) spends time dividing people among every conceivable line, when the country’s unity is literally withering on the vine. Grrrrrrr.

Last night I went to see Obama speak at a rally in Chicago. Only the second day on the campaign trail, it was interesting to see him so fresh in the process. He didn't seem like a natural to me. But he did seem pretty darn genuine. He has a lot to learn to be a good politician. He didn't pause at the right spots to let the crowd cheer, and his speech seemed a little rehearsed, but that's not the point.

The point is I agree with his ideas. The point is he's exciting. The point is, he is fresh.

Why do we blame him for a little youthful arrogance? Becoming the first black editor of the Harvard Law Review and then taking a job as a community organizer is a big deal, even if it is arrogant to say so yourself.

Obama closed his speech in Chicago with a good line "I am an imperfect vessel for your hopes and dreams." Whatever arrogance he has had in the past is gone.

Politics, especially liberal politics, isn't really about the past, it's about the present and the future. In the present, Obama is the most exciting candidate in the last 40 years. JFK was in his first term as a US Senator when he ran for president. RFK was too. Obama creates the same kind of excitement that the Kennedys did.

An article lambasting someone for having to learn to be good at their job seems a little like throwing stones in glass houses. I really don't care to much that he isn't a natural, I just want him to learn to be a great president. Just give him some time.

I'm really the only one who just read an article about how great leaders aren't born but made and about how a bright, brash young man grew up and found a his voice by embracing his true self, which included his middle class multi-ethnic background.

Black people may be right to wonder if Obama is "really" black, because he's not one of them, he's one of *me*: a child of non-white immigrant parentage who made it. That said, can the Democrats stop eating their young? Obama is not black enough. Hilary is not feminist enough. Edwards is not working class enough. Shucks and golly! Who do you want? McCain?

I agree with what one poster says about the article: that it's in fact a long backhanded compliment to Obama, but one that starts out so negative in tone that most readers seemed to miss the compliment. What's happening in this piece, in terms of the writer's approach to his material, is what I see all over Salon these days--a kind of bargain-basement form of "new journalism" (a style 50 years old now BTW) in which the writer's perceptions and "voice" (that much overlauded quality) trump all other aspects of fact/analysis. It's as if everybody's trying to outsnark the A&E section writers, except that we are talking about the fate of this country, as opposed to the latest overhyped indie film or HBO original series. What sucks the most is that this narrowing of vision (down to the me-me-me of the writer herself or himself) has happened in a time when what we readers need, badly need, is COLD, HARD, FACT-BASED reporting and analyis of a truly national/international breadth about the continued death-mongering shenanigans at the highest levels of power. For chrissake, we've got those mighty assholes rattling their sabers at Iran, now! No wonder so many formerly loyal readers are dumping their subscriptions. I will be among the many who won't bother renewing.

Meanwhile, for those interested in less narcissistic writing, harder-hitting reportage, and fact-based opinion writing of an unabashedly progressive bent, I'd suggest www.tompaine.com. Drier and less colorful than Salon and its many navel-gazing personalities, but more of what we need right now. I would also highly recommend Ken Silverstein's Washington Babylon column at the website for Harper's magazine.

One thing I have learned in the plethora of Obama coverage is that he and I both graduated from high school in 1979 in Hawaii. This has made me more curious about him, and so I've read accounts in the Hawaii papers, and accounts of friends from Harvard and even his basketball coach at occidental college. They all describe a personable, contentious, confident young man.

He was all of this before he ran against Rush in Chicago. McClelland is flat wrong to suggest that Obama's persona was newly minted following his defeat. From all I can tell, he possessed many of his admirable qualities all along (though perhaps they didn't show during that difficult campaign).

Certainly, that is the case with his multi-culturalism. Hawaii is ground zero of multi-culturalism, and living there must have shaped him in profound ways. It's not just the "white mother/Kenyan father" narrative. Its white mother, Kenyan father, growing up in a minority white environment with pacific islanders, southest asians an asians in equal numbers. (I remember hearing the name "Barry Obama" from a mutual friend back in the day and thinking she was talking about a Japanese guy.) That experience would only have been amplified by his years in Indonesia.

Knowing where Obama comes from has made a big difference for me. And makes him far more apppealing as a candidate.