Talk about Salon hitting the third rail. I read the article, enjoyed it and felt that it gave me some insight into the first politician running for US President that I have been as excited about as I was about Bobby Kennedy. I want to know more about him and I felt that this article gave a good explanation of who he is now and how he has evolved over the years.

I liked hearing about how someone reacted to losing who has so obviously been a winner for nearly all of his life. I thought it was pretty much a positive article giving me some good insight into Barack Obama. It reminds me of how I enjoyed hearing about how Bill Clinton reacted when he was Governor or Arkansas, then he was not, then he was. How do these guys react to adversity? For politicians, being rejected is just this side of dying.

Then I got to the letters.

WOW!

I must admit that I got here late and never saw the word "uppity" in the article. It had been scrubbed. If I had seen it, that one word might have, forgive the pun, colored, my entire perception of the article, as it did for so many others. A quick Google of the word shows where it is coming from, "Taking liberties or assuming airs beyond one's station; presumptuous: "was getting a little uppity and needed to be slapped down" New York Times" (from http://www.thefreedictionary.com/uppity).

So I liked the article without the word, but certainly can see why people were so incensed by it. In fact, I would love to have a background article about the inner workings of Salon and how that word got there in the first place and how it was removed.

Other than that word though, I don’t see the hatchet job so many outraged writers are talking about. I think the piece is more of a Rorschach test of the writers’ own prejudices. The furor over this portends the pitfalls in the future for all other reporters of writing about Barack Obama in this campaign.

I’m sticking with you, Salon. Sorry you lost some subscribers over this. Keep punching and Illegitimi non carborundum, Don’t let the bastards grind you down.

> He's a face -- a surface-level handsome one

I hear this all the time, but must admit to never seeing it. He kinda reminds me of Don Knotts.

it used to be illegal for black people in this country to learn to read. they could be beaten, maimed, even killed for daring to "act white." black people in this country used to be lynched for being "uppity." for daring to learn to read, for daring to become educated, for daring to own property, for daring to try to rise above poverty, oppression, disenfranchisement, segregration, etc. "uppity negroes" were (and apparently, still are) a threat.

white people often use the word "articulate" to refer to educated black people in the same surprised tone they might use to remark on a new trick a neighbor's pet has learned. "you've taught fluffy to dial the telephone; how nice." the fact that so many of you are angry that anyone (read: anyone black) would take offense at the use of these terms, is a depressing commentary on your knowledge of black people's unfortunate history in this country. it would be wonderful if we could all be free of the stain of slavery, but it has polluted everything, even (perhaps, especially) our language.

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.)

Except that, unlike Reagan, Obama's actually smart -- to imply that there's no substance behind the image is typical Reader backhanding. Despite McClelland's snide Reader-style digs salt-and-peppered throughout the piece, what still emerges from it is that Obama learned from his mistakes and -- he admitted to them and, most importantly, didn't repeat them.

All the more reason why we could use somebody like that in the White House, no?

is that it's a racist term when used to describe blacks standing up to whites, or pretending to be as good as whites. Clearly, the point in this article was that Obaba seemed "uppity" to blacks, not to whites. It's clear that Obama was giving an unintentional message that he had a derogatory attitude towards his race. And that he realized this, corrected the mistaken impression, and improved his relationship with the black community.

Believe it or not people, words have more than one connotation, and often a rich, diverse history behind them. Hate to think what would have happened if the article covered his childhood and mistakingly dared to comment "as a boy..."

Mabye I'm just re-reading too quickly, but Salon has done this before, silently re-vising when a writer gets called on something (at least when they confused Popeye's national origin, they acknowledged it). I think, if they are going to alter an article in response to criticism, they need to add a line somewhere, maybe at the end of the article, that the piece has been revised. Nothing wrong with taking their readers into consideration, quite admirable in fact. But what was there should be acknowledged.

To me, this is much more disturbing than the use of a word, and a poor attempt to whitewash (sorry, no other term will do) Salon's publishing history.

the person who responded to my comment wrote that it was black people who called obama uppity. no, it wasn't. it was the author of the article. the only named black person who had racially charged comments to make about obama was trotter, whom the author describes as "plenty black." this article strikes me as disingenuous at best, as slimy at worst.

I was ready to subscribe to Salon because of Glenn Greewald but after seeing this article with the original

headline I think not. Big mistake, Salon.