That may have been the beginning of the conversation, but I am posting to the paragraph below. When Rachel says, "...when elites and intellectuals condescend to everyone else and belittle their views..." she does not mention Palin or Bush but "elites" and "intellectuals."

This conversation moved beyond the limits of Bush/Palin into elite and intellectual. Granted, there are some pretty obnoxious conservative elites too, but I challenge you to find one who is identified in the media, any media, as such. Bush is wealthier than Kerry but he's not elite. McCain is wealthier than Obama but he is not elite. Bush went to Yale and Harvard and Adover but he's not intellectual or elite. Go figure.

I'm just catching up on the Palin-Bush "I.Q." discussion, and there is just one point (OK, maybe two) I wanted to address. Juliet, I don't know anyone who feels a "nearly blood-thirsty anger against people who read books," and I think it's an unfair characterization. What makes people angry, and blood-thirsty, if we must go there, is when elites and intellectuals condescend to everyone else and belittle their views. (A point that Melinda makes astutely in her latest post.) In this democracy of ours, we all get a vote. It doesn't matter if you have read the complete works of James and Faulkner or if the highlight of your week is the latest issue of People magazine