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?

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.

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.

After re-reading the piece, it seems to me that for all his complaints about other reporters "drinking the Obama juice" with their descriptions of the candidate's "tall elegance," McClelland spends an indordinate amount of time discussing Obama's body language and voice (and McClellan's seemingly ESP-aided divinations of Obama's moods) rather than the message, or even really the man, behind them.

I don't know what this means for Obama, but if McClelland is prepared to make an argument that all of this has great meaning for our presidential picks, i would ask him this question, and expect a serious response:

What would you write about if a disabled person someday ran for President?

Stephen Hawking, anyone?

More importantly, isn't all this ridiculous devotion to the idea of "charisma" another way of admitting that substance has no meaning in our elections? If that's true, why aren't we (meaning you too, Salon editors and writers) trying to do better? I want a charismatic candidate as much as the next long-suffering Democrat, but one of the many lessons we should have learned from the presidency of George W. Bush is this:

A Presidential candidate who appears charismatic (at least, to a large percentage of the population) but lacks substance makes for a disastrous president.

That's not to compare Obama to Bush in any way, but Salon's not doing its readers any favors with this kind of lightweight "political analysis," and readers(/citizens) don't do themselves any favors by paying more attention to issues of body language and vocal intonation than to what a candidate has done and says he/she will do.

I am outraged; Salon just lost its remaining credibility.

It's telling how a candidate like Obama draws the racists out of the supposedly "liberal" woodwork...

Just goes to show that even in 2007, the notion of strong black leadership still terrifies the establishment... do you have a guilty conscience, that your fear drives you to try to tear down a person of color who rises above negative stereotypes?

I guess if he had saggy pants and bad grammar you'd like him better, and wouldn't find him threatening? Maybe if Obama was poor, helpless and poorly educated, you wouldn't be calling him "uppity" in your headlines? Would he have your approval then?

Salon, you make me sick. You're part of the problem in this country.

But sometimes I think it's important to join the critical mass.

I'll admit my prejudices here. I'm a dyed-in-the-wool Democrat and I can't stand Hillary Clinton. I've liked John Edwards in the past, but some of his recent comments on gay marriage have alienated me. Kucinich lacks gravitas (I mean, the guy basically pulled a "Win a dream date with a Congressman" promotion . . .). The faceless others -- Vilsack, Chris Dodd -- don't seem charismatic enough to catch fire. Don't get me started on Joe Biden.

Assuming Al Gore doesn't run (and I hope he does; if he ends up with an Oscar and a Nobel Prize, he'll make a one-of-a-kind candidate), who does this process of elimination leave me with but Barack Obama?

"Just a handsome face," says one Salon.com poster -- and a million other amateur hack pundits. How insulting -- to Obama, and to voters like me. I've heard Obama speak in detail on a number of issues (his lengthy interview on NPR's Talk of the Nation was particularly impressive -- off-the-cuff and very persuasive), and he strikes me as intelligent, thoughtful, and -- importantly -- genuinely and deeply liberal in his politics.

That voice -- and, sure, that face -- are the voice and face that the world will hear and see if Obama becomes our president. After eight years of Bush, what an exciting change it would be to be represented by somebody who doesn't disgrace and humiliate us.

I can't figure out, then, why so many people -- in the media, in the blogosphere, and in snarky, self-satisfied pieces like this and others in Salon -- are looking down their noses at me because I'm not seeking out reasons to dislike and distrust Obama. Why would I be looking for reasons not to be fired up about an unapologetic intellectual who might also have some campaign skills?

The racist subtext of this piece goes beyond the withdrawn-but-not-explained "uppity" tag. So Obama isn't black enough. Who cares? So he "wanted people to know he went to Harvard." Please. Earlier this year, in another non-starter of a scandal, we learned that he "once hired an intern who was recommended by a lobbyist who was later disgraced." Wait -- what?

The Republicans will -- I hope -- have plenty of time to tear Obama down with irrelevant smear attacks. In the meantime, can we please try to transcend the dumb-asshole politics that the GOP has perfected? This is our primary process, not theirs. Smarten up, Salon. Jesus.