Gerson is a big giant douche no doubt. But I can't see the crypto racism here--as I can so often see (because it's way more obvious) with tea baggers, talk radio hosts and the like. They've made this argument before Obama ran--it could easily be an attack on Sen. Kerry, VP Gore, generic "Elite Liberal," etc.

WaPo link takes you to a dead Stranger page.

I got that god damn dukes of hazzard song stuck in my head now.

Well, the final paragraph quoted is just Gerson's spin. My spin is different: Obama is an evolved human being, while Tea Partiers are devolved troglodytes.

Setting aside that the tactic appealing to pesky concepts like "facts" and "science" during an election is tantamount to calling the majority of the country a bunch of ignorant fucking rubes (don't get me wrong, they may be). But, is the electorate really 'scared?'
Coming from someone who isn't a Teabagger, it seems like the mob is more pissed off and indignant then frightened.

Charles, you need to find a new criticism. All Democrats are accused of what Obama's being accused of here. All Republicans get the pass that Bush got. Your spin on this makes you sound like an idiot, which our mutual friends keep insisting to me that you're not.

Holy shit, Chuck, get off your damn self-pitying martyrdom horse. Reading that excerpt of the article that you posted, it's pretty damn clear that they're talking about "Obama the rational person" vs. "Bush the fearmongering lizard-brain".

How in the hell you can take the point, clearly made, that Obama is appealing to the rational part of our natures, and make that into "Obama is a snob"? I'll tell you how; you make EVERYTHING you see into an insult; you're a whiny little bitch. That's RIDICULOUSLY destructive to the your ethnic group; how exactly do you think it would feel for a young black man, who, seeing Obama rise to a position of power by appealing to reason and rationality, something we should ALL appeal to, just to see him denigrated as a "snob" by someone misinterpreting the writings of a clearly supportive columnist?

Fuck you, you whiny little shit. Do you want to know who's keeping your "people" down? YOU ARE, asshole. It's your shitty "everything that happens makes me a victim" attitude. Obama is a fantastic president; he's done great things for this country (and yes, he's failed on a few fronts as well). And yes, you can find a whole lot of fanatic anti-Obama screeds out there, many of which are nakedly racist in tone. But you choose a clearly positive, upbeat article that focuses on his intellectual skills to complain about racist treatment of him; fuck you.

I just woke up, so maybe I'm not awake yet, but I see no snob or good ol' boy references.

10- "How in the hell you can take the point, clearly made, that Obama is appealing to the rational part of our natures, and make that into "Obama is a snob"?"

"But you choose a clearly positive, upbeat article that focuses on his intellectual skills to complain about racist treatment of him; fuck you."

Wow, funny and ignorant. Oh and to say this President is really great is a bit of stretch. Can you at least let a ray of sunshine in and admit that he's mediocre?

Actually, I don't know what article you're reading. Did you read anything at WaPo beside the text quoted here? Are you reading the article by Gerson, entitled "Obama the Snob?" Perhaps that's how Charles was drawing the conclusion that Gerson was calling Obama a snob (not to mention the rest of the article which is not positive at all). 'Cause, well, he did.

Charles, I wonder if you think it's different when Obama causes this to happen:

http://www.rawa.org/temp/runews/rawagall…

than when a white President was causing it to happen. Do you think the family members of the people in those pictures give one good fuck who made it happen?

13- No, I didn't read anything at WaPo beside the text quoted here; Chuck quoted a full three paragraphs from the article, NONE OF WHICH supported any of what he was saying, and didn't even bother to mention that the article as linked might portray a different set of things. And therein lies my deeper point with the (unbelievably shitty) writing of Mr. Mudede; he's someone who insists on writing about his perceptions of things, but does it incredibly sloppily.

If you want to quote an article in which someone calls the president a "snob", then it's appropriate to do one of a few things: you can quote the section in which the author calls him a snob, you can state that the author calls him a snob, or you can quote a section in which the author IMPLIES that he is a snob. All reasonable things; what is not reasonable and is, in fact, asinine, is to quote a section of an article in which the author does NOTHING TO IMPLY snobbery, and then rant about snobbery. Even if he'd mentioned the fact that the article was entitled "Obama the Snob", that might have been okay; instead, he doesn't even bother.

This wouldn't rankle so much if Mudede wasn't deeply involved in writing about shallow perception; I can't count the number of times he's written an article which was entirely about his immediate perception of something, with no investigation into the depth or content therein. If you're setting that up as a rhetorical device, it's asinine to write so asymptotically. Petard, hoist.

And I'd be curious to know why you think Obama is a mediocre president. (Other than perhaps that even the most middling mediocrity would seem excellent after a treasonous moron like Bush.)

The sooner members of the media who are so quick to appear as "men of the people," by defending the moronic, drooling ramblings of our stupidest, most un-informed citizens, the sooner we can all start living in a sane world.

Sorry, the sooner they STOP, the sooner... etc. Excuse me while I wipe the drool off my own keyboard.

15-Eh, you may have a valid beef with Charles. But he provided a link (albeit broken) to an article entitled, "Obama the Snob"--where the thesis of the article is that the president is a snob. Then you originally said it's an upbeat, positive article.
"And I'd be curious to know why you think Obama is a mediocre president. (Other than perhaps that even the most middling mediocrity would seem excellent after a treasonous moron like Bush.)"
No doubt that Bush regime is traitorous. Unfortunately, Obama's presidency just seems like a nicer, smarter face to the Bush regime for a couple of reasons:
-fealty to the highest economic class, multinational corporations
-continuation and elevation of the Bush War policies
-death warrants for US citizens
-fourth amendment violations and lack of regard for the rule of law

and on...

Charles,
I strongly disagree with the title and content of your SLOG post. I find it heavy-handed and possibly disrespectful of Mr. Obama. Mr. Obama is POTUS. Just as his predessessor Mr. Bush was. That's plain and simple. I find that assessment poorly worded. I don't think any rational Republican or even informed American thinks that way of Pres. Obama. I didn't vote for the fellow but he remains my President just like Mr. Bush for better or for worse.

@19
The problem is this, as you qualified "rational" Republicans don't think this way. Unfortunately, "rational" republicans are few and far between these days. Most of the "rational" voices have been purged by the far right extremists which now control the party.

What the fuck. Way to take it somewhere ridiculous, Mudede.

"upitty nigger" aint heard that in a while. well if the shoe fits............

I get it, the amount of conspiracy behind Obama is lightyears beyond what Bush had on him. I mean, when you're commenting some commentary about comments made to people who wanted to hear that. We sat through an anti-science president for 8 years who repeatedly tried to teach creationism with my money, who attempted to deny evolution it's proper space in human history, and wanted to build giant lasers pointed at Russia.

OBAMA HAS EVERY RIGHT TO BE AN UPPITY WHATEVER, and if the republicans decide to continue their streak and nominate another anti-science president you should thank him for going easy on the slow people riding the short bus who would like for you to believe, and force your tax money to go to education that would teach kids that a single jealous god created the universe in 6 days 6000 years ago and everything he ever wanted us to know is in a single book. When the republicans ditch that platform, I'm ready to argue.

Fuck the WaPo