It is fascinating to observe the latest criticisms of Barack Obama. From conservatives and liberals alike we have begun to hear a new mantra, "he's too arrogant, he's being presumptuous." Let's be frank about what is really going on here. It is a new racial code.

Virtually everything about the Obama campaign has debunked the conventional wisdom: He outperformed and outstrategized Hillary Clinton in the primary season, and vanquished the Clinton machine. Goaded by John McCain to travel overseas, Obama toured the Middle East and Europe in a manner that was successful beyond all prediction. Despite the wishful thinking of Republicans that Obama would be snubbed and rebuffed by our troops in the Persian Gulf, they mobbed him with joy and excitement. France's Sarkozy and Britain's Gordon Brown treated Obama with uncommon fanfare, and Sarkozy offered that the French would be "delighted" if Obama won the election. The 200,000 cheering Berliners who listened to Obama's speech symbolized something that I blogged about back on May 19, after John McCain's invidious comment that Obama was the "candidate of Hamas":

Moreover, in trying to tie Obama to Hamas, McCain completely missed the point. Hamas aside, Obama is the favored candidate of the entire international community. If there were a world-wide referendum on our presidency, Obama would trounce McCain. He would win in England, he would win in France, he would win in Canada, he would win throughout the world, precisely because he has had the same inspirational effect overseas that he has had at home. The international community is looking for diplomatic leadership.

Finally, Obama has led John McCain in almost every poll since the he became the presumptive Democratic nominee. I list these accomplishments not to sing Obama's praises; I do it rather, to point out how improbable and singular Obama's success has been. Barack Obama's candidacy has been the ultimate "man bites dog" story, an African-American candidate who has garnered a mass following. This is unheard of in American politics, and we have now begun to see the blowback. It comes in the form of "Who does he think he is!?" To be blunt about it, Obama is now being criticized for things for which no white candidate would ever be faulted. Let's take a look at some Obama's presumed offenses:

1) He's an Ivy Leaguer. The last three presidents, Bush junior, Clinton, and Bush senior, all had Ivy League educations. Clinton also spent time at Oxford as a Rhodes Scholar. When did you ever hear carping about their Ivy League connections? When was it ever suggested that any of the three must be "elitist" because they went to Yale, or Harvard, or Oxford? Indeed with George W. Bush, the criticism was precisely the opposite, that his grades may not have qualified him for so fine a school as Harvard Business School. But there was never any hint that the three presidents' backgrounds were in any way disqualifying. But we do hear that about Barack Obama.

Just yesterday, when Virginia Governor Tim Kaine's name emerged as a leading veep candidate, one writer suggested that because both Obama and Kaine went to Harvard Law School, the combination might be too "elitist" for the electorate. Huh? The sad truth is, Americans have gotten so used to the idea of African-Americans as underachievers academically, the image of Barack Obama becomes a little unsettling for some. Hence, in the minds of some voters, he becomes "elitist."

2) The "bitter comments." Obama's comments that small town America, when experiencing economic distress, clings to "guns and religion," caused a firestorm. And while it is easy to see how the remarks could be seen as patronizing, I believe that there was more to the reaction. Throughout history, we have gotten used to whites being patronizing and paternalistic toward the black community. What we don't often hear is a black man saying condescending things about the white community. So Obama's comment stood as another man bites dog story. And once again, the reaction of the blue collar community was, "Who the hell does he think he is!? This black guy thinks he's better than we are!"

Yes, Obama's words were ill-chosen, but it was his race that added the extra sting to his remarks. And the sad truth is, Obama's statement that things like guns and religion were hurting his prospects with blue-collar workers was baloney anyway. After all, those issues didn't hurt Hillary Clinton. The real problem that Obama had (and still has) in the hinterlands of Ohio, Pennsylvania, and West Virginia, is that he's black!

It is to his great credit that Obama has learned that the best way to deal with this issue is to address it head-on, rather than tiptoeing around it. That's why Claire McCaskill (still number one on my wish list for veep) introduced Obama this way in front of 2000 cheering, white, Springfield, Missourians yesterday:

They said a young black guy named Barack Obama couldn't get elected to the United States Senate from Illinois. They were wrong... They say he's arrogant, not patriotic, blah, blah, blah...The truth is he's humble, he's patriotic, and he's a devout Christian.

Obama, for his part, added:

Nobody thinks that Bush and McCain have a real answer to the challenges we face. So what they're going to try to do is make you scared of me. You know, he's not patriotic enough, he's got a funny name, you know, he doesn't look like all those other presidents on the dollar bills.

When Obama made the comment about the dollar bills, the audience (mostly rural and white) chucked heartily en masse: They knew damned well what he was talking about.

3. "I am a symbol..." In one of the most ill-conceived and reprehensible columns I've seen in a long time, Washington Post writer Dana Milbank bends over backwards, trying to make his case that Obama has gone from the "presumptive" nominee, to the "presumptuous nominee." Milbank starts out with this curious indictment:

He (Obama) ordered up a teleconference with the (current president's) Treasury secretary, granted an audience to the Pakistani prime minister and had his staff arrange for the chairman of the Federal Reserve to give him a briefing. Then, he went up to Capitol Hill to be adored by House Democrats in a presidential-style pep rally.

Let's be blunt. This is disgraceful stuff. Does Milbank seriously object to Obama meeting with economic advisors such as Paulson, Bernanke, Rubin and Volcker? Bernanke briefed John McCain in March on the potential rescue of ailing firm Bear Stearns, but apparently, Milbank thinks that was fine. Milbank's loopy column notwithstanding, we should be concerned if Obama did not meet with such advisors, not that he is meeting with them. Further, note the language that Milbank uses: In Milbank's parlance, Obama didn't "take part" in a teleconference with Paulson; rather, he "ordered up" a teleconference, as if by a snap of his finger. Obama didn't "confer" with the Pakistani Prime Minister; rather, he "granted an audience to the Prime Minister." I'm surprised Milbank didn't take it a step further and say that Obama "deigned to speak with" the Prime Minister."

But the worst of Milbank's shameful piece is yet to come: Milbank writes that Obama, while meeting with "adoring" congressional Democrats, declared:

I have become a symbol of the possibility of America returning to our best traditions.

This is the quote that launched a million conservative bloggers, each complaining about Obama's arrogance. The problem is, Milbank butchered Obama's real quote:

It has become increasingly clear in my travel, the campaign, that the crowds, the enthusiasm, 200,000 people in Berlin, is not about me at all. It’s about America. I have just become a symbol of the possibility of America returning to our best traditions.

Obviously the real quote conveys a completely different meaning, but not the one that suited Milbank's purposes. My question is two-fold: First, how does Milbank sleep at night? And second, does the Washington Post have any editors?

It has become clear to me that over this campaign Obama has been held to a different standard than that of white candidates. What passes for confidence--or even acceptable puffery--among white candidates. becomes unacceptable arrogance if done by Obama. And even the term "arrogance" is a euphemism. What they're really saying is that he is "uppity." My advice to Obama? Keep being uppity; they'll get used to it.

With the Democratic Convention approaching on August 25, and the Olympics running from August 8 through August 24, many are predicting that Barack Obama could make his vice presidential choice any day now. With that possibility in mind, it seems appropriate to take a look at the major players in the Democratic veepstakes. Rather than looking at the strongest prospects first, I prefer to do the opposite, using a process of elimination to rule out the also-rans. With that in mind, here they are:

1) Hillary Clinton. The most obvious rule-out is Hillary Clinton. News reports have suggested that the vetting process for Hillary never even got started, as Bill, understandably, was loathe to turn over information about the contributors to the Clinton Library. Such a list of names would almost certainly be controversial, with many of them international billionaires and potentates, and I suspect that neither Clinton wanted the humiliation of divulging that information and then not being chosen. Further, is it just me, or has anyone else noticed how peaceful the political arena has become since Hillary exited stage right? When Hillary was still in the fray, it was a little like having a drunk person at your party; only once they leave do you realize how noisy they were. The chances of Hillary being chosen? Zero.

2) Sam Nunn. Of all the serious veep prospects, perhaps the only disastrous choice for Obama would be former Georgia Senator Sam Nunn. Never seen as a progressive figure during his 24 years in the Senate, Nunn would seriously antagonize the left wing of the party, as many of his past positions have not been in synch with those of Obama. Nunn was a homophobic and reactionary figure during the "don't ask, don't tell" debate in the 90's, he has fought to limit appeals for death row inmates, and voted in favor of school prayer. To pick a running mate so ideologically inconsistent with Obama, for the sake of trying to win the state of Georgia, would be a cynical return to the old politics that Obama has forsworn. The final problem with Nunn is his age. He will be 70 this year. The age issue is quietly one of the most powerful things playing in Obama's favor. To choose a running mate so close to McCain's age would be to undercut Obama's advantage. The chance of Nunn being chosen is small, but it is greater than zero. It would be a collosal blunder.

3) Kathleen Sebelius. Kathleen Sebelius, governor of Kansas, is often talked about as the leading female vice presidential prospect. She's a popular governor of a midwestern state, and her father, John Gilligan, is the former governor of Ohio, leading some to believe that by choosing her, Obama might get a "two-fer," appealing to voters in both Kansas and Ohio. There are, however, two problems with Sebelius. First, she is viewed by many as a wooden, uninspiring speaker. Second, despite her support of Obama, she has been little seen during the campaign. I'm a political junkie, and I've barely seen her during the entire campaign. Given her minimal exposure, it is highly unlikely that she would be chosen..

4) Bill Richardson. Regular readers of my blog know that I've always felt that Bill Richardson, governor of New Mexico, would add something to the ticket. With his impressive resume (Secretary of Energy, Ambassador to the UN), and his status as a Hispanic, Richardson has some very desirable attributes, as states like New Mexico and Colorado have become important battleground states. While Richardson earned the enmity of the Clintons when he endorsed Obama, I wouldn't expect that to be disqualifying. However, Richardson's low profile recently suggests to me that he is not on Obama's short list. Perhaps the Obama campaign concluded that a Black/Brown ticket was more than the country could handle. I believe Richardson's prospects are currently small.

5) Evan Bayh. Evan Bayh, senator from Indiana, is also the son of legendary senator Birch Bayh. Before his election to the senate in 1998, Evan Bayh was a two term governor, an important line on his resume. Bayh, a strong Hillary Clinton supporter, is the quintessential moderate Democrat, and would be a classic veep choice, a solid, competent and unexciting individual who may not help you that much, but would never do anything to hurt you. It is questionable, however, whether Bayh on the ticket would make Indiana, a Republican stronghold, competitive for the Democrats. Bayh's prospects of being chosen at this point are, like his politics, moderate.

6) Joe Biden. Joe Biden, senator from Delaware for the past 35 years, recently caused a commotion when he said on Meet the Press that he did not want the job of vice president and had "communicated that to the candidate." He went on to say however, that if chosen he would accept the role. When asked about this seeming contradiction, Biden responded:

if the presidential nominee thought I could help him win, am I going to say to the first African-American candidate about to make history in the world that, "No, I will not help you out like you want me to?" Of course, I'm--I'll say yes.

Biden has much to recommend him. While he serves in Delaware, he was born in Scranton, Pa, and his ties to the Keystone State would be very helpful to Obama. Further, Biden has a tremendous resume, serving on both the Foreign Relations Committee and the Judiciary Committee. There are two downsides to a Biden vice presidency. First, he is so influential in the senate that it would be a great sacrifice for the Democrats to lose him from that body. Second, Biden is so verbose, that it is almost guaranteed that at some point in the campaign he will put his foot in his mouth. After all, only Biden would be so loose-tongued as to describe Obama early in the campaign as "clean and articulate." His chance of being chosen is moderate to good.

7) Chris Dodd. Chris Dodd, senator from Connecticut, has served in the senate for 28 years. As head of the Banking Committee he has been a central player in finding a solution to the mortgage crisis, and he offers a progressive voice in the senate that is much in synch with Barack Obama. However, recent revelations that he received favorable treatment on his personal home mortgages from disgraced lender Countrywide, has tarnished both his image and his veep prospects. He took a hit when his hometown newspaper, the Hartford Courant, wrote that it was time that "Dodd got off his high horse, came clean and admit he screwed up." Dodd's chances, once good, are now only moderate.

8) Tim Kaine. It once looked like Obama had a bounty of riches to draw from if he wanted a veep from Virginia. At this point, however, former governor Mark Warner and Senator Jim Webb have taken themselves out of the running for veep. That leaves governor Tim Kaine as the only game in town. Happily for Obama, Kaine is the best choice of the three anyway. While now a Virginian, Kaine also has roots in the Midwest, havin grown up in Kansas City. Kaine is a first-term governor of Virginia, having succeeded the popular but term-limited Mark Warner. Prior to that, Kaine had been the Lieutenant Governor, as well as the Mayor of Richmond. Kaine is Catholic having done a brief stint as a Jesuit missionary in Honduras during his college years, and like Obama, is a graduate of Harvard Law School. It is a feather in Kaine's cap that he was the first politician to endorse Obama outside the state of Illinois. On the stump, Kaine has been an effective surrogate for Obama. Kaine's unique set of attributes--Midwesterner, southern governor, Catholic, progressive, embodiment of the "new south"--fit Obama like a glove. The fact that Obama campaign recently opened up 20 offices in Virginia shows the priority they have assigned to it. Kaine's prospects for the veep are solid and strong.

9) Claire McCaskill. Claire McCaskill, first-term senator from Missouri, over the course of the campaign has been Barack Obama's most visible, and most trusted surrogate. It is also true, but not generally recognized, that she played a crucial role in Obama's success on Super Tuesday. As the evening wore on, on February 5, states that Obama had been hoping for--California, New Jersey, Massachusetts--began to fall into the the Hillary Clinton column. It was crucial for Obama's momentum to be able to claim at least a "tie" on Super Tuesday. A loss in the battleground state of Missouri would have given Clinton clear bragging rights for the evening. All night long he trailed in Missouri, but late returns that came in around midnight, allowed Obama to eke out a razor thin victory that nonetheless had huge symbolic implications. This was in no small part due to the efforts of Claire McCaskill. Of all the surrogates whom I have watched over the campaign, only McCaskill matches Obama on the charm scale. She radiates both intelligence and warmth, and is the prototypical modern woman: Divorced, successful working woman with six kids and step-kids, McCaskill is an attorney by profession. Before her election as senator, she served as a prosecutor and as the state auditor of Missouri. Her zeal and good cheer in debate with her opponents reminds me of a latter day Hubert Humphrey. Some have suggested that pairing Obama with a white female might cause some primal resentment in conservative areas of the country, something to be considered. In my view, she is the best campaigner of all Obama's veep prospects, and her selection would further energize the party. Asked about her prospects however by Tom Brokaw on Meet the Press recently, McCaskill smiled and said, "If I were betting, I wouldn't bet on me."

Who do I think will get the nod? Frankly, I have no idea. I'm open to suggestions.

The recent New Yorker magazine cover depicting Barack Obama as a Muslim and Michelle Obama as a gun-toting, Angela Davis style radical, makes one thing perfectly clear: As easy as it sometimes looks, creating a good political cartoon is a very difficult thing to do. The New Yorker cartoon fails badly, not because it is offensive, but because its satirical message is so unclear that it leaves the reader confused rather than amused. The cartoon is "too hip for the room," confronting us, jarring us, without conveying any clear-cut satire or humor. As such, the cartoon falls flat. The mere fact that the New Yorker editors were forced to run around all day trying to explain the cover, reveals how flawed the cartoon was.

As novelist-essayist Arthur Koestler pointed out years ago, all good humor works simultaneously on two levels, as two seemingly incompatible frames of reference collide to produce the explosive result that we call "humor." It could be as primitive as a dignified person slipping on a banana peel, that is, the high and mighty being brought down to size. Or it could be the woman, worried that her son is seeing a psychiatrist, who is reassured by a friend, "Don't worry, it will all work out as long as he is a good boy who loves his mother." When the psychiatric meaning and the everyday meaning of loving one's mother collide, we get irony and humor.

The problem with the New Yorker cartoon is that there is no second frame of reference to help us. We see the image and wonder, is the creator criticizing Obama? Is he sympathizing? Is he commenting on shameful rumor-mongering? With so little context provided on the cover, we are at a loss as to how to respond, and that is not funny. Indeed, when CNN did a man-on-the-street poll about the cartoon, virtually no one saw it as a hip, ironic statement on viral rumor-mongering during the campaign. Rather, they tended to see it as merely an insulting depiction of Obama. That's not funny.

However, the cover could have been funny: Pulitzer prize winning cartoonist Nick Anderson, the current president of the American Association of Editorial Cartoonists comments, "“I think, as a piece of satire, it utterly fails." Anderson goes on to say that a caption such as "The Politics of Fear," would have added some context and clarity to the image. He continues:

It would have been even stronger had they shown an enemy of Obama painting the picture, or imagining it in their head.

Personally, I would have tweaked the cartoon by showing two images, a wholesome image of Obama and family, juxtaposed with an imaginary voter's hostile "email" version of Obama. This would have provided context and humor.

Contrast the failed New Yorker cartoon with one by cartoonist Matt Wuerker of politico.com that covers similar subject matter. Wuerker's cartoon depicts four blue collar white males sitting in a bar watching Obama on an overhead television set:

The first one says: Ya know he's a Muslim.

The second one says: And refuses to say the Pledge!

The third one says: And took his oath on a Quran!

The fourth one says: And what's worse, he's an elitist who thinks we're gullible ignoramuses!

Now that's funny! The image of four blue collar whites buying into every scurrilous rumor about Obama, then claiming that they get no respect, is a sad, painful and hilarious commentary on one of the important dynamics of this campaign. As such, it speaks more eloquently about Obama's difficulties with working class voters than virtually all of the so-called communications experts I have listened to on this subject. It is easy for such experts to bring out the cliche that Obama "can't relate" to these voters, or that he "can't close the deal." The fact is, Obama is great with working class indidviduals; he was highly successful organizin g low income individuals on the South Side of Chicago. The deeper truth here is that Obama's problem with working class whites has less to do with him than with them; even the strongest message can be undermined by suspicion and racism. The New Yorker magazine was making a laudable attempt to address this issue, but failed.

On a related note, sometimes timing and circumstance determine whether something is funny or not. On Sunday, when CNN anchor Wolf Blitzer asked the Republican South Carolina Governor Mark Sanford if there were any differences between the economic policies of George W. Bush and those of John McCain, here was Sanford's response:

Um, yeah. I mean for instance, take, you know, um, uh, take for instance the issue of, uh, of, um (drums fingers), I'm drawing a blank, and, I hate it when I do that, particularly on television....

If you saw this exchange live, it was excruciatingly painful to watch. Blitzer himself said afterward, "It was painful for me, and I was the questioner!" However, imagine a Democratic campaign ad in September, in which an ominous voiceover says, "Can you name any differences between the Bush economic plan and that of John McCain?" Cut immediately to Mark Sanford hemming and hawing without being able to answer. The voiceover then says, "Don't worry Governor Sanford, we can't think of any differences either!& quot; I can assure you, in this context, Mark Sanford will be hilarious! And I have to assume that the Obama staff is preparing such an ad even as I write this. And as for Sanford? You can bet that McCain scratched him off the veep list so fast it aint funny.