It seemed at first that Salon was simply doing its job--providing some critical response to a media lovefest of all things Obama. Some critical articles about any and all of the candidates is welcome. But now it seems like Salon is hellbent on convincing readers that Obama's simply no good at all, that this candidacy is some sort of hoax.

I don't support him currently--I'm undecided and he's third on my list for the Dem primaries--but his approach is obviously being seen as viable if Salon is going full-throttle nasty against him.

To use the word "uppity" without following it up with "negro" is just cowardice on Salon's part. That's what was meant, it's how we all read it, and, like other letter-writers have already posted, it's shameful.

It isn't enough that "uppity" has been changed to "smug." The article should be deleted and replaced with an apology from the Editor-in-Chief. It's the kind of mistake that undermines everything Salon supposedly stands for. A clear retraction should be posted.

Did any of you comnplainers even read the article?

Any of you?

'Cause it is pretty clearly a simple piece on the evolution of a politician's style. It's not a bashing piece at all.

I started reading salon when it seemed like they were the only ones standing by Clinton when the corporate media was ginning up the whitewater controversy, the impeachment fiasco, etc.

Its been years since they were the only source of that kind of reporting on the web, and lately it seems like they've been struggling for relevance. Aside from King Kaufman i don't get much out of it anymore. I continued to subscribe out of loyalty for past deeds, but this is way over the line. I'm done.

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?

Oh, sure. And the people who complain about Obama being described as "well-spoken"? Clearly they need to just shut up and examine their own prejudice. I mean, he speaks well! What's so bad about saying that?

Frankly, that entire argument strikes me as utterly disingenuous.

Maybe the upset around that word does say more about the readers than the writer, but that's for a good reason. Words have power, and we're not far enough on the road to racial recovery that we can afford to throw them around carelessly. This isn't a matter of being overly PC - it's about realizing that a loaded word like "uppity" is loaded for a reason. There's decades of history there, and pretending that that history carries no weight is naive at best and utterly foolish at worst. That "meaningless construct of race" may not carry much weight in a biological sense, but it's very, very present in our culture.

You want to call Obama "uppity"? Fine. But don't pretend that that word carries no deeper racial meaning, and don't act like people are out of line for taking offense to it.

And yes, Salon, that "gaffe" of yours is getting more attention than the article itself. Serves you right. I can't believe that kind of slip made it into print.

Last week, Obama wasn't Black enough. This week, he's wrong for beginning in Springfield, and now, you're gonna tell me he's ambitious. Salon, please write something about the man that's worthwhile to read.

Very close to the end of the article comes this:

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.)

Why can't most writers of pieces like this just spend 3 minutes and look up a poll or two? Is it that hard? Do they just absorb Fox News and RNC talking points or what they hear at the local bar and work from there?

People want national health care - it polls around 65% very consistently.

UPPITY?

Oh HELL no.

What is wrong with this place?

Unreal...the racism coming out of the woodwork because of Obama.

Strange. I've never seen Bush, Guliani or McCain described as uppity...

Thank you Salon for reminding me why I'm really starting to hate your glib and gossipy articles and weak, insipid contributors (Debra Dickerson is particularly atrocious) - "drips with charisma" "inspires fawning" "smug young man" and that's just in the catchy intro. I'm not saying don't critique or challenge the man - but can you lay off the creepy FOX-esque reporting style? Let me be excited about Obama and the giddy, idealistic possibilities of the post apocalyptic Bush era before I have to click onto your site and be confronted with your ever-so-clever-and-provocative cold water thrown in my face.

Cowards. Leave it as 'uppity' and take your lumps.

A little too close to the bone, eh?

I had just finished reading what I thought was an insightful background piece on an intriguing man who will likely be President someday when I turned to the Letters, where I found out that I had instead read a hit piece by a racist rag that is trying to destroy Obama's chances for leadership in this country.

I thought the use of "uppity" was funny. Throwing the concept back in the faces of the ignorant, if you will. The word's been applied to women, too, you know, for a long, long time. "Uppity" is not knowing your place, and by god, I'm all for that!

This article has left me with a deeper understanding of and confidence in Obama's ability to handle himself in what will undoubtedly be a fractious campaign, and has made me more likely to back him. Hardly the desired result of a bash piece, I would say.

And there's nothing wrong with a story that doesn't cite chapter and verse of a politician's every policy statement. This is the Internet, people. If you insist on knowing nothing about Obama but his stand on the issues, go to his website. Everything you need to know is there.

P.S. Salon, I would suggest, for your own well-being and understanding of what your readers actually think, skipping over the first couple of pages of letters after a story. You're getting the untempered gut reactions of those who have found a perfect place to dump whatever bile might be rising within them for whatever reason.