by matttbastard
Shorter Dana Milbank:

“Uppity. N*gger.”
For fuck’s sake, Dana–stop wasting our time (and Katherine Graham’s money), cut the crap and just say what you really fucking mean (and, um, next time, try to get your facts straight, a…

As to the comments about Obama and feigning humble and being arrogant… I look, and I see Obama and his campaign bringing this on themselves. It’s not the biggest deal, since the McCains were always going to be accusing Obama of something, or actually a lot of somethings. I’m just saying Obama is not innocently removed from the “arrogant and disdainful elitist” meme, as Jay Cost described in an article you guys might appreciate. Do you really think all those Pennsylvania Hillary voters were racist? Most of them were not racist. They just looked at Barack and saw an elitist they could not relate to. An excerpt from Mr. Cost’s essay:

Bill Clinton had a great [meta narrative] in 1992: generational change can invigorate a tired government and grow a sagging economy. Clinton’s outfit consistently reinforced this narrative. From the campaign theme, to the selection of Al Gore as running mate, to “It’s the economy, stupid” – it made sure people knew his core claim.

Obama’s narrative should be similar to Clinton’s. It’s tailor-made for a year like this and a man like Obama. But that is not the Obama campaign’s message. Its message often seems to be: this great man will unify a divided America around himself.

This is not entirely bad. A message of unity could be effective, even though it is tricky to sell in a partisan campaign. The trouble comes with the part about Obama himself. His campaign’s emphasis on his greatness is creating three political problems.
[...]
If Democrats are wondering why Republicans have taken to sarcastically calling Obama “The Messiah,” this is a good indication. On nearly every page [of BarackObama.com], we are greeted with a picture of an illuminated Obama issuing a challenge from the clouds: if you believe this special man can change Washington, rally behind him.

This is a shaky foundation for a voting coalition. Most voters will be skeptical that Obama is so grand. So, why should they vote for him?

If he is going to issue a challenge to voters, it should be something like: if you don’t like George W. Bush and if you are upset about the economy, vote for Obama. Cue Fleetwood Mac. Drop balloons.
[...]
Early in his candidacy, Obama’s narrative was very different. He was a candidate mobilizing the public into a social movement for the sake of the common good. This was a good message – but because of his campaign’s grandiose rhetoric and imagery, it has been displaced. Obama no longer seems like the mere mobilizer, working to unite people around the common good. Instead, he often seems like the point of the mobilization itself.

He should return to that initial narrative.

I agree with Mr. Cost.

Dana Milbank has done what he frequently does: he sniffs the oncoming media common wisdom, runs ahead of it so he can be first to put the oncoming common wisdom into a column, then supports his thesis with magic editing and even overt lies. Welcome, Barack, to George W. Bush’s world.