It is one of the more exasperating characteristics of liberals. You can't embrace someone who has succeeded in a meritocracy. You can't embrace someone who has assimilated into our mainstream. You can't embrace someone who doesn't possess your idea of the most politically correct bonafides. Even someone who shares very similar values. Uppity. Lost an election to an ex-Black Panther. Not Black enough. Your attitude smacks of arrogance, exclusivity, and class politics.

I saw Obama on his campaign trail during his congressional seat race against Bobby Rush, and from what i remember, i wholeheartedly disagree with the author's take on it.

After i heard him speak (at Northwestern Law) i came away extremely impressed and even remembered calling several family members to talk about the guy. He was definitely the buzz around campus and my only reservation about him was, "he must be too good to be true." As a law student at NU,people may argue that i am not necessarily the demographic that will swing the election, but that is silly. I was impressed by two different aspects of his personality during his congressional run. 1) He seemed very sincere, in a manner that is rare among politicians. Even when a politician cares about an issue, they usually come across as so polished and practiced that their sincerity doesn't come across, that was not hte case with Obama. 2) He was intelligent, and was able to handle difficult questions in a very easy and non-confrontational manner. Sometimes you realize he hasn't actually said anything of substance, but that realization takes some time and reflection. The immediate reaction is almost always, "he is smart, and i trust this guy."

The fact that he got 31% of the vote in a district where Bobby Rush was an incumbent, is an extremely impressive feat. I don't know for sure, but i am betting that Rush won his elections at a much more impressive margin ever since or before Obama's try at him.

There is no doubt that Obama's rise has been under a lucky star. His senatorial run was benefited strongly by a very weak republican field rife with an odd scandal, and the democratic crop wasn't particularly strong either.

And while i am still not decided on him as a presidential candidate, i disagree very heartily with the author's argument that Obama's charisma and star power are only recent developments in his political career. He had it against Rush, it just wasn't enough to beat him. (There was a NYtimes piece about Obama's Harvard Law presidency that also seems to cut against this author's point.)

What i do find most interesting is a developing story line that Obama may not play particularly well to african americans. Perhaps that is only a reaction to his meteoric candicay by

those who feel he hasn't paid his dues yet.

One has to admire Obama for his forthright candor, he inhaled, there's no mealy-mouthed sidestepping this issue with him, like there was with Bill Clinton. Obama's the man, Clinton's Georgy Porgie Puddin' and Pie kissed the girls and made them cry. Who was Clinton trying to fool when he pretended to smoke pot anyway? Cries that Obama isn't black enough underlines the greatest failure of American liberalism: race relations, it's created a black American underclass that's as obsessed with it's race, the importance of it's skin color, with the subsequent corrosive sense of entitlement that ensues from racism that's as bad as the John Birch Society. Barack musn't get too cocky though, as he still is relative political Rube; Obama was right in pointing out John Howard's statement about his stance on the Iraq war being out of line, as Australia should have about 14,000 troops on the ground, not 1400 troops, to have an equal proportion of it's populace in arms in Iraq compared to the USA; but it makes no sense to piss off our staunchest allies with an angry retort, as Australia has been one of America's tightest allies in the Pacific and elsewhere the past 100 years, through thick or thin, better or worse. Australia like Kenya also shares America's English speaking heritage which ought to bind us together in a world that's not just English speaking.

does anyone at salon actually think that some people admire Obama because of his policies? the heading is both insulting to him but also to readers and supporters. This, coming at the heels of two obama articles without any substance. Meanwhile they bury references to Hillary's increasingly disturbing policies regarding censorship and women's rights. If I have to dig this hard to find things in Salon that I care about, it is no longer a journal worth supporting.

ciao salon, its been nice knowing you -

>>Forgive my non-American ears for not understanding the context. What does "uppity" mean other than to be presumptiously >>arrogant?

The word "uppity" has a very long history among racist white Americans. "Uppity," as applied to a black person, means someone who doesn't "know his place," that is, someone who doesn't know that his place is always inferior to that of the white person. "Uppity" slaves were ones who committed any number of offenses, including simply not prostrating themselves enough among whites. "Uppity" was often combined with the "n"-word and was also used to describe those African Americans who wanted, and worked for, civil rights. "Uppity" (which, again, simply meant that whites thought the black person wasn't acting obsequious enough) was used many, many times as a reason to torture and lynch African Americans.

Salon's use of the word "uppity" to describe Barack Obama is upsetting people because it seems to imply that Salon concurs with the connotative history of the word. The use of the word is deliberately provocative and, to me, seems irresponsible, occurring as it does in the context of an America that is still racist enough that many of its residents would believe a black man running for President is forgetting his place.

This post embodies precisely the intended purpose and motive behind the article (as presented):

I simply don't know enough about him... and what I do know, and what I am learning from articles like this, paint a portrait of a man who, just like every other politician, is more concerned with being successful at politics than really doing anything.

Obama claims he will be a uniter (I recall another unseasoned, 'trustworthy' presidential candidate who made the same claim not too long ago), but where is the evidence to support such an assertion? Why are we to believe that he will be any more successful in generating bipartisan support than anyone else? The attacks on him by the right-wing media, blamed on Clinton, indicate that the right-wing is no more willing to listen to his ideas than anyone else's.

The author of this article makes clear that before he learned it was advantageous to disguise his contempt for his fellow legislators, Obama was a pompous ass, an arrogant Ivy-leaguer "stooping" to state-level politics rather than making big bucks at a high profile firm. So far as I can tell, the only thing that's changed is that he's not a lot smarter about hiding his arrogance. Does anyone really think that a spanking at one of his first elections really changed his heart on such matters? His loss seems to have smartened him up, but I don't think it seriously humbled him. His skyrocketing path towards political stardom, and his own insistence on his superior abilities to govern despite his lack of experience, demonstrate his arrogance.

The left-wing likes Obama because he is conveniently multiracial, has a relatively spotless record, he's young and charismatic, and he's electable without being soft. The right-wing fears him for the same reasons. But can anyone say what the hell Obama could actually accomplish, as president, that anyone else couldn't?

Until Obama can prove that he's more than a smooth-talking, intellectually arrogant pretty-boy, Hillary's got my vote.

Now, what I think the author originally intended to convey- beyond simple background reporting from a qualified writer- is that Obama is not only superbly qualified on paper, he has also learned and matured quickly in his political career. It could be simply argued that "the only thing that's changed is that he's not(sic) a lot smarter about hiding his arrogance"-- that he is somehow immune to real life experiences- or cynically, that all he has learned is to be a smoother, slimier politician. That is not what the author is saying.

"That wasn't the Obama I'd known. But it was the Obama America came to know. I was sold. I voted for him twice that year." Also, "Terry Link believes that losing that congressional race liberated Obama to be the real Obama -- the bright young charmer Link had met as a fellow freshman in Springfield." Whatever the intentions of the author or the distortions of the editorial process, the idea that Obama is a fast learner who has finally come into his own, who has found his stride, comes through clearly. That his intentions or the nature of his transformation is questioned towards the end of the article reflects, I think, editorial manipulation more than the author's impression of Barack.