I just listened to MSNBC discuss a topic that has become unbelievably popular in the past few weeks. They were talking about whether or not Barack Obama is "arrogant."
(Sorry, I was combing my hair in the bathroom, and didn't get to see who was on the panel).
Follow me over the hump for my analysis of the implied meaning of this word and my opinion on its overuse as it relates to Senator Obama.
It is absolutely ridiculous to even discuss such a topic, but since they continue to do so, I have this to add.
He is and should be CONFIDENT at this stage in the presidential race and his career, but he's certainly not arrogant.
A candidate is arrogant when he "suspends his campaign" so that he can go to Washington and grand-stand in the face of an economic crisis. Arrogance is evident when a candidate assumes that a nation will simply gift the highest office in our land to him because he carries a legacy of service to his country. (That really bothers me because the whole idea of public service is that when it's completed, the public should not be expected to owe you anything).
When used, the word arrogance implies that the subject is behaving in a manner that is above what he or she has earned. The word implies that the subject behaves in a manner that is somehow more grand than his or her lowly existence. It suggests that Barack Obama should be asking for someone's permission to be intelligent, confident, accomplished, authoritative, informed, and... well... presidential.
My question to the pundits and panelists who continue to entertain the subject of "arrogance" on their shows is this: If Senator Obama should not conduct himself with intelligence, confidence, authority, and an over-all countenance that is presidential in nature, then how should he present himself? Would your answer be the same if he were a white candidate? Are you sure?