That's how this article was initially promoted, anyway. Now its just "smug."
Either way, I don't see why so many other bloggers are portraying this article as negative. The guy wasn't born a natural campaigner, so he had to learn as he went along? And worse, as he learned, he by all accounts learned phenomenally quickly? What's wrong with that?
Read through to the end and you get this conclusion:
So what do you make of a campaigner whose persona changed so drastically in four years? That he's finally learned to be himself, or that he's putting on an act? He's doing both. All great politicians are also great performers. 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.) They're alike in another way. Reagan was a washed-up thesp, doing Vegas and General Electric ads, until he was cast as governor of California, then president. Obama has also grown into the character he was born to play: the great uniter who can bring together old and young, black and white, Democrat and Republican. So far, he's playing it brilliantly.
If that's how a negative article sounds, I really need to rethink how I read.
UPDATE: Salon's explanation of the use of the word "uppity" can be found ">here.
Subscribe to this blog's feed
