Yes, it's funny how language will "slip" into racism, and how journalists and their editors "accidentally" miss these connotations. "Racism" is not only using the n-- word, it's also a way of looking at and organizing the world, just like other -isms. The article was clearly trying to be edgy, and the journalist and editor were both complicit in this form of racism, which characterizes Obama's ambition as a trait beyond his proper station as a young black man.

Racism exists here in both the language associated with "uppity" as it has been used in this country since at least the Civil War, and in the intent of the editor and journalist to capture a tone that emulates the racists who used and continue to use such language. If Obama's candidacy fails, it will in part because these racist categories exist in minds of many white Americans. This is not about political correctness. This is about recognizing the history of language, and its ability to frame reality and shape cognition. In addition to an apology, Salon and Mr. McClelland should reconsider their own assumptions and use their position within the media responsibility. As it is, they show how the media has denigrated American political discourse.

"I don't know enough about Obama, but I do know that one is either a 'natural' or one is not - you can't learn it, or become one through practice...the phrase carries its own definition."

It was immediately obvious to me that this headline "How Obama learned to be a natural" was meant ironically. The same way one might say "In politics, sincerity is everything - once you can fake that, you have it made". Is no one capable of reading with subtlety anymore? As for polititians being smug and arrogant, didn't one of Shaw's characters say "you know nothing and think you know everything; you are obviously destined for a career in politics". What else is new? I take it for granted that a politician is self-aggrandizing and power-mad. My only concern is for the policies he/she espouses, and whether he/she can actually promote them and implement them. Where does Obama stand on war, on universal health care, on reigning in the military industrial oligarchy, on climate change and peak oil? Who pulls his strings? What will he do to reduce wealth disparity in this country? As for Hillary, how could anyone vote for someone who voted in favor of the Iraq war - a war that may even exceed Vietnam in stupidity and waste? But to criticize Obama for faking being "natural" is to fall into the error of hopeless naivity, and to lose all claim on being taken seriously.

I do love Salon, but the tone of this article does not suggest any kind of real journalism. It's nasty, poorly written, and dare I say it, "uppity" AND "smug".

Shame on you.

I do love Salon, but the tone of this article does not suggest any kind of real journalism. It's nasty, poorly written, and dare I say it, "uppity" AND "smug".

Smae on you.

It seems McClelland objects to the Obama's process of maturing and learning from his mistakes - that we should view this process instead as a cynical bid to manipulate his image for personal gain. What of it - to some degree we all do it all the time. It's call 'growing up'.

Almost no one reading this article has actually seen the word anywhere in conjunction to this article. It was in the byline and removed very early on the first day the article was posted.

Yet everyone wanting to attack this piece latches onto it, obviously not responding to the piece (in which they never saw it) but the comments of others here, which are being taken at face value. It's most probable that McClelland didn't write the byline and that the racist interpretation of it (if that's accurate) never was a part of his thought process.

"Uppity" has become the straw man letter writers are using because, for some reason, they are highly sensitive to any criticism of Obama.

I came over today because Glenn Greenwald is here now. I stopped subscribing a year or so ago after Salon seemed to start dwelling endlessly on the trivial. I miss War Room and thought that the wooing of Unclaimed Territory to the site meant things were getting better. Then I visit and discover a long essay on how uppity Obama--sly, sly thing!--has become a better politician over the years.

Is there no end to this kind of nonsense? Could reporters everywhere dispense with pieces worrying over Obama's black-or-not-really-black-enoughness, or Hillary's "conniving" or "shrill" nature, and just write about what ideas (or lack of them) these people have to clean up the mess the Bush administration is going to leave us with?

Fair enough, I hadn't thought of that, you're absolutely correct, that practice is appalling.

I guess I'm just blinded by living in Toronto. I was thinking about this last night while taking the bus home, I made a point of looking at everyone around me and noticed that the great majority were non british/french and it dawned on me that I if I didn't consciously make a point to take note I wouldn't have noticed. Maybe it made me think that race is not so much of an issue here (but I forgot about the Native issues, prolly because there just isn't a large and visible Native population here)

point taken

cheers,

More like more muted, more quiet Canada. I like Canada - it's my home. That doesn't make it free of problems, or a good cudgel to hit Americans with. The Americans have their deficiencies, and we have ours. I submit in support of this perspective the police practice of dumping Natives out on the prairie in mid-winter, without coats and shoes, where they freeze to death.

I am all for vigorous criticism of the US, in part because of its influence outside of its own borders. However, the idea of Canada as absolutely clean and sane is, minimally, wilfully blind.