Apology accepted. I'll save you a seat on the flying saucer.

I do not care whether the Barack Obama we see today is an act, a man humbled by defeat, or a newly matured man. Whatever. What I care about is, is he telling us the truth about how he feels regarding public policy?

If he is telling us how he really feels about the issues, then whether he's a stiff pretending to be hip, or an actual hipster, is immaterial.

Forget personality: if people vote for Barack Obama, and he stays true to his word, then let us praise him. If he wins office and then betrays the voters, then damn him. Time will tell, but I truly hope, whether he wins or loses, that he does so on the basis of truths, not lies.

All followers of Bob Dobbs, I apologize wholeheartedly.

Obama has sure figured out the charisma thing and his reponse to the Australian Howard about Obama ruining the middle east if the troops leave by March 08 as Obama has proposed was ABSOLUTELY PERFECT. (I still agree with Edwards that the troops should come home NOW.) But Obama made the perfect "put up or shut up" response and he did it immediately. Five points for Obama!

Nothing like a progressive rag trashing a progressive candidate. The use of "uppity" really helped bring out the racist wingnuts like the one before this post. Nice job. And you wonder why I stopped paying a subscription last year.

cheeseblinder described this so-called news article as "noxious subgenius blather."

I say, please don't insult the good people of the Church of the SubGenius - the only organized religion honest enough to admit that they made it all up and that they're only in it for the money - by associating them with the style-over-substance reportage typified by this story.

What strikes me as odd is that the reporting on Obama in the press and here on Salon is focuses on his campaign style, neglecting the fact that he is a sitting Senator of the U.S. Congress for two years now. Surely an publication that prides itself on its "original reporting" could have a reporter do some digging on Obama the Senator as opposed to Obama the Candidate.

Praise Bob!

Astonishingly stupid article. Obama was the president of the Harvard Law Review. What was he supposed to act like? A field hand? A Connecticut preppie prick pretending to be a Texass rancher? He's grown, and continues to grow. Probably more than Mall Wart Murka can deal with now, but an amazing man. I'd still go Edwards/Obama and let the republikans piss into their own wind.

You Salon Letter Writers just don’t get it. Didn’t McClelland tell you he voted for Obama twice?

He KNOWS Obama is NOT black!

It’s the black folks who will never vote for this uppity nigger…

Cosigned:

Debra Dickerson & Joel Chandler Harris

Oookay. So he matured from being an insufferable know it all to learning how to get along better with people once he realized that acting like an arrogant ass wasn't doing the job. So what?

I had to learn the same thing. One of my brothers had to as well, as have some of my friends. It's not that complicated; it's learning that being very smart is not enough to be effectual.

Maybe it seems unreal if you never went through the same process, but gained charm certainly doesn't have to be insincere. And I much prefer my brother's company these days.

About the author of the piece:

www.tedmcclelland.com

read it and...

be unimpressed.

“Thanks to everyone who pointed out the gaffe in the headline on the cover. We screwed up by using the word uppity -- and the error should have been caught before publication. We just fixed it -- the cover headline now matches the headline on the article, which was the correct version.”

Jeanne Carstensen, Managing Editor

So, the insertion of “uppity” instead of “smug” (bad enough) was a Salon editorial decision. You’re doing a heckuva job, Jeannie!

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.)

I don't know if anyone has already mentioned this or not, but does the author really think he can equate Reagonomics with universal healthcare in terms of their resonance with the people? Universal healthcare is not a hard sell that takes some extraordinary figure to shove it down people's throats. IT IS WHAT THE PEOPLE WANT.

In nearly a decade of being a subscriber, not once have I ever considered terminating my Premium membership.

Until today.

Please, get off this trope -- is Terry McAuliffe ghost-editing Salon this year? Or is it Roger Ailes? Either way, we're getting Obama-bashing for our annual subscription fee, and I did not sign on for this.

For years, I have treasure Salon for its commitment to principled journalism, but this is the level of noxious subgenius blather I could hear every day by tuning into "Fox and Friends" and letting Steve Doocy spoon horseshit into my brain.

To use a Colbertian construct, you're on notice.

What the hell is Salon.com doing? I read about your article about "Uppity" Obama who was as black as the Southsiders could hope for!

When did Salon.com become so racist? Or is it simply you hope the Lieberman in women's clothing, Ms. Clinton, will be the next president.

I never thought there'd come a day when I'd in any manner of comparison put Salon.com and FOX News in the same boat.

I'm very disappointed.

I'd rank "uppity" even higher than "articulate" in the list of Things To Not Say About A Twenty-First Century African-American Unless You Want To Sound Racist.

(And these are the Intertubes ... you can now say "smug" all you want, but we've got the screen caps of your first version for public consumption.)