What annoys me most about this whole business is that I don't see a substantial difference between the two versions. Either way, it comes out to me as "what people are cheering about is the possibility of America rediscovering its better self." And frankly, I don't see what's so bad about saying that.

I suppose it could be argued that saying you've come to symbolize that hope displays a certain degree of hubris - but it seems to me that the very act of running for president, and I mean this to apply to anyone and everyone who has seriously sought the office, to think you have the special abilities and qualities that make you more fit to be president than any other available choice, well that very act requires a fair degree of hubris.

Is Obama arrogant? Of course he is. And so is McCain and so is Clinton (both of them) and so is Romney and so is Bush and so is.... You simply cannot come to be in that posistion without being self-confident to the point of arrogance.

This is just another bit of media-generated nonsense designed to fill the space between ads, one that has shown that the most arrogant, self-centered figure in the whole business is Dana Milbank.

"The source of the quotes is an unimpeachable voice of House Democrats and a strong Obama supporter."  Weisman and Milbank believe that the souce is unimpeachable. Did Judith Miller and Michael Gordon believe that their stories on WMD in the NYT were based on falsehoods?  Anything is possible when the souce is unidentified.

Why is Milbanks's  word the truth? It seems to me that it's the opinion of Milbank  that the voice was " impeachable " and he knows less than the people who were in that meeting. Milbank should be  a little more squishy and, as Larrye said, a little less arrogant and  self-centered. My take on him is that he has often appeared to be very smug.