Edward McClelland's commentary was just really weirdly turned.

The main point that Barack Obama is a smart, charismatic guy who learns from his mistakes, adapts, changes and found himself in the process is well taken. These are qualities I want in a presidental candidate and sounds like classic character development.

That said, the article was so front loaded with bile before getting to the main point and pay-off that Rush Limbaugh could have gotten off on it and probably did.

Come on Salon, use a little editorial judgement on this stuff. I'm not saying don't be critical of Obama, instead I'm saying think about breaking up the negative into a more complex and balanced article. You know, stuff like flow and good writing instead of a half-slammed tabloid hit piece.

I hope your letter gets starred so that your point is heard above this fray.

This is the language used to describe Obama in the article:

"ambitious, condescending, elitist, arrogant, irritated, patrician, testy, ineffectual, self-righteous, disdain, impatience, condescension, presumptuous, haughtiness, sense of entitlement, preening, insecure, aloofness, makes grease look gritty, weaseling, pedantic"

Not to mention "uppitty!"

Call Fox News, that's fair and balanced reporting!

It has been one after the other. The Obama's bashing articles are tiresome and I will blame the media and journalists, including salon's if we get another GWB in 2008. a.k.a Giulliani, whose demeanor is his way or the highway just like the loser we have on the whitehouse.

Can't Salon comprehend that we, the people, are craving for a president that discusses real issues, fresh ideas, and that actually have some work done?

Salon's piece is insulting to the American people.

Shame on you Salon.

This is the third strike and to me you are out!

Not reading or visiting your website anymore.

wasn’t “uppity” the perfect, if unintentional, challenge to readers to get past the nonsense around the meaningless construct of “race” that’s been driving these threads?

A Rorschach test that illuminates more about what the reader carries around “race” than about history or etymology?

What would it mean if this candidate did, in fact, behave in ways accurately described as “uppity”? Does the hysterical reaction, reflexively framed in terms of race, say more about the schemas and anxieties of the reader, or about the intent of the writer?

The reactive outrage expressed as, “Uppity! How dare you! Don’t you know what that means?” might more productively be channeled into a self-reflective, “Why does it mean so much to me?” Answer carefully.

I have just finished "How Obama Learned To Be a Natural," and find I have several reactions. The first was to be angry at Edward McClelland for what seemed like "trashing" Obama. I read on. Next, I thought that he had done some good reporting about a smart, ambitious and complex person who has become a charismatic celebrity in a relatively short period of time. In thinking about McClelland's point of view, I detect a bit of envy. However, he is also admires Obama's ability to be such a quick study. And he does not carry on about his lack of experience for the job, ad naseum. I admit that I am completely in the thrall of this incredibly bright and attractive young man who seems self-reflective and even a bit self-mocking. He is a bright light atop Ego Mountain, because it seems so far that he has the substance to back up his style!

Kate Madison

Depoe Bay, Oregon

Being the non-American who didn't get the connotation of the U word, a bit of googling and jus treading the hysteria that ensued (with exclamation points and ALL-CAPS, oh my!) opened my eyes to the word's history.

I didn't realize it was such a loaded word, since I've seen this word used in a non-racist context quite a few times in the past, even in other news publications, if I recall correctly.

But it makes me think about when Lovie Smith of the Chicago Bears pointed out about how he's anticipating a day when this subject of being a black coach is no longer a story, I certainly hope of a day when words from a different era are no longer viewed upon with such a negative context.

I guess it'll have to take a few generations for that to be erased, much like the swastika (a religious symbol that predated the Nazis and was a symbol of good luck and success).

While I still don't consider the McClelland piece itself as a smear job (he even admits to voting twice for Obama), Salon really did botch it with the U word. Good luck tomorrow, Salon. I hope this blows over for you quickly.

As muckraking, this is really scraping the bottom of the barrell. It goes over the boundary if not quite into fiction,then certainly into muddy speculation about the state of Obama's soul and his motivations. Please! Every poltician learns, has to learn indeed and do we want elected officials who can't learn and have no sentiivity to the responses of the voters? We've got a guy like that in the Presidency now. Where, where, where does the narcissicism in this nation end? As evidenced in this flimsy article, polticians don't have a corner at all on narcissistic ambitions,small minded jealousies, and lack of care for the common good. Some journalistics are courageous, others cowardly and some just monumentally petty.

Such a stupid, stupid mistake leaves me to conclude that you should hire copy editors old and wise enough to understand the historical language Southern racists.

What a monumentally hilarious fuck up. Kids today, I tell ya....

Here I was ready to read some positive prose about a politician now that Obama is in the ring, and Salon is tearing him up. As one reader said, Salon is doing so without reporting his actual track record. Come on, Salon, leave the bullshit to Fox and give us the GOODS on Obama! I'm ready for him, aren't you, for God's sake?

I'm tired of all FOUR Clintons and Bushes, and I'm thrilled about the prospect for someone with VERY LITTLE EXPERIENCE in DC!