spot on.

but don't expect anyone to get it.

the whole function of subtexts like this is that they work subliminally. very hard to persuasively blow the cover of a subtext. some of us understand that "presumptuous" and "arrogant" signify "uppity"; that's easy. but your reading here is subtle, not nonsensicle, and again, spot-on. when people say that the chronically furious Hilary is "angry" they mean one thing; when they say that the composed and incisive Michelle is angry, they mean something else. and on and on.

no one is even questioning the dubious validity of the term "reverse racism". it's a bizarre campaign, and the whole "he's different from us" (in so very many ways, just not race -- that woud be "paying the race card") schtick is a racist gambit that may very well work.

oh. i'm white. just been around this block some. people are as dumb as a bag of hammers. i loved mccain telling a bunch of bikers to vroom their engines for him even louder: "i recognize that sound. it's the sound of freedom." (see today's times.)

right. bring 'em on.