Good and worthwhile point; and might I add, that if Hillary Clinton were the nominee we would be having some of these questions about whether or not "the sex card" was being played by either side.

IMO the answer to both the theoretical case with Clinton and the real-world example with Obama is that in fact both sides are playing "the [whatever] card." But, I need to qualify that there is a deeper issue here.

Glenn Greenwald today wrote a very good column consisting of an argument he makes against how politics and the media have a symbiotic relationship when it comes to shifting the national attention to personality-based attacks. It is nothing new to any Greenwald reader, nor should it be to you, of course.

For the Right to call Obama "arrogant" or insinuate that Clinton is a castrating "ball-buster" is from their standard attack script. That Obama is black, or that Clinton is a woman adds a layer of complexity to the calculus of this line of attack since it can be construed that any attack is either racist or sexist, and, as we have seen today, the Right can attempt to paint the other side as "crying wolf"; with Edwards, Gore or Kerry, no such distinction existed (even if the attacks on all three are necessarily sexist by painting each as feminized, womanly men -- something that I think you have a particularly good forum from which you can rightly call foul).

My point is, the Right has to be exceedingly careful how they choose to attack Obama this election cycle unlike previous ones where they could lie and slander with impunity. Whether or not this ends up hurting McCain or helping Obama remains to be seen, but it changes the calculus of an already deplorable smearing technique. Add to that the fact that Obama has been quick to respond to, debunk or defuse these attacks unline Gore, Edwards and Kerry and we have an entirely different ball game on our hands.

You are both right and wrong. See my earlier comment to Joan and let me know what you think.

The race card is, IMO, a third-rail that neither campaign can resist playing dangerously close to.

For your viewing pleasure:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PPEV6twzxmE

Or click my name, enjoy!

unline = unlike, typo.

Unlike Kerry, Gore or Edwards, Obama is quick to acknowledge and respond to attacks made in his direction.

I think that somehow this may be where the arrogance attack derives: instead of sitting back and taking it, Obama puts his neck out. The Roveian construction of arrogance is in this sense very much a veiled racist attack -- Obama is "uppity."

Remember, Karl Rove is a psychology major, and his "political skills" are nothing more than advanced PR manipulation. A quick review of the last 8 years paints a rosey picture of Rove's "political" (eg, "public relations") successes in stark contrast to the glaring "political" or policy failings of the Bush administration.

Granted, you and I disagree on the extent to which sexism played a role in Hillary Clinton's failed bid for the nomination; yet we can both agree that media narratives about sex and gender roles played *some* part. Surely, you agree that this "arrogance" line of attack has a whiff of racism taken in context?

Tyrone, nothing says lovin' like ALL CAPS.

KateTex, if your incessant concern trolling for the opposition succeeds in derailing the all-but-inevitable coronation of Barack Obama, can I hire you to brow-beat my bosses into giving me a raise and/or my bank into giving me a low-interest rate loan? How much do you charge for your services?

Inquiring minds want to know.

Racism here? You bet. And it's name is Obama.

-- Saxon The Dog

It..? Dog..?

What a rich tapestry of passive-aggressive racism and self-deprecation you weave in so few words. Bravo.

On which count? Surely not smarts. As for looks, beneath it all she is as average as you or I. Christina Aguillara, now there's a good looking woman!

Spears is a great metaphor for the Bush presidency -- throughout her career she always had some Karl Rove figure applying makeup, keeping her in shape, choreographing her every move; an entourage of producers, song writers, image consultants and executives propping up someone with scant natural talent.

Hopefully, Obama will turn out to be our Justin Timberlake -- talented, witty, likable and bankable despite his dubious boy band origins.

Okay.. so, to my mind the question is not whether or not Obama is (or, more accurately, can at times be) arrogant but whether we, as a country, should hold it against him.

"Arrogance" as a political slant is a featured adjective in this election cycle; but what is a high-ranking politician /but/ arrogant? What makes Obama any more or less arrogant then Bush, Cheney, Pelosi, both Senator and President Clinton, Reagan, Nixon, Steny Hoyer, Larry Craig or the rest of them? The only un-arrogant politicians I can thinkg of are.. none. Carter? Maybe. Kucinich.. he is arrogant in his own way.

Family friend George Voinovich is maybe un-arrogant.

But is what Obama exhibiting arrogance or confidence? Charisma? Charm? Are these leadership qualities we would want in a president? If he's arrogant, is he at least smarter than Bush, and does he not have a better world-view than McCain?

When did being "elite" become a bad thing?

I know that's a lot of questions. I apologize.

McCain's strategy is to reinforce the racism of people who believe Obama is an uppity nigger (who weren't likely to vote for him in the first place), and alienate everyone else?

The largest employer in the US beside the government itself is a ponzi scheme to enrich the top half of a percent of Americans while workers are paid less than any reasonable standard of poverty with virtually no benefits to sell products manufactured in fucking China? Wake up and blow that sucker open -- unions now!