Starbucks Does Not Equal Savvy

They harassed her until she registered to vote six times!:
http://www.foxnews.com/video2/video08.html?maven_referralObject=3145562&maven_referralPlaylistId=&sRevUrl=http://www.foxnews.com/politics/

"Not all Democrats agree with Mr. Frank that such policies are off-limits to criticism. Last week Rep. Artur Davis of Alabama said in a statement: 'Like a lot of my Democratic colleagues I was too slow to appreciate the recklessness of Fannie and Freddie. I defended their efforts to encourage affordable homeownership, when in retrospect, I should have heeded the concerns raised by their regulator in 2004. Frankly, I wish my Democratic colleagues would admit when it comes to Fannie and Freddie, we were wrong.'

"Mr. Davis is a member of the Congressional Black Caucus."

'Rank snobbery'

Camille Paglia, who supports Sen. Barack Obama, has nothing but scorn for the way the media has treated Sarah Palin.

"The mountain of rubbish poured out about Palin over the past month would rival Everest. What a disgrace for our jabbering army of liberal journalists and commentators, too many of whom behaved like snippy jackasses," Miss Paglia writes at www.salon.com.

"The bourgeois conventionalism and rank snobbery of these alleged humanitarians stank up the place. As for Palin's brutally edited interviews with Charlie Gibson and that viper, Katie Couric, don't we all know that the best bits ended up on the cutting-room floor? Something has gone seriously wrong with Democratic ideology, which seems to have become a candied set of holier-than-thou bromides attached like tutti-frutti to a quivering green Jell-O mold of adolescent sentimentality."

The Antichrist!:
When George Soros failed to obtain the election of his candidate, John Kerry, in 2004, he brooded for a while, even said he might get out of politics altogether, but he just couldn???t stop himself. He has stated publicly that he wishes to burst the ???bubble of American supremacy,??? because he says our preeminence in the world is a detriment to global ???equilibrium.??? So far, he has failed, but he keeps on trying.

And Mr. Soros has made no secret either of the fact that he sees the shortest way to effect political shake-ups, what he terms ???regime changes,??? is through very difficult economic conditions.

America has not yet felt the full force of Soros style economic shock treatment. But others have.

Soros made his first billion in 1992 by shorting the British pound with leveraged billions in financial bets, and became known as the man who broke the Bank of England. He broke it on the backs of hard-working British citizens who immediately saw their homes severely devalued and their life savings cut drastically in comparative worth almost overnight.

When the Asian Financial Crisis of 1997 threatened to spread globally, George Soros was right in the thick of it. Soros was accused by the Malaysian Prime Minister of causing the collapse with his monetary machinations, and he was branded in Thailand as an ???economic war criminal??? who ???sucks the blood from the people.??? Right in the middle of this crisis, Soros dashed off his book, The Crisis of Global Capitalism, which demanded a ???third way??? toward economic stability.

Wake up, America, before it is too late!!!!

he ACORN does not fall from the tree:
http://justsaynodeal.com/acorn.html

This is one of the few Democrats that I am proud of!:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZR5ekEuGyvk

EVEN MORE ON THE VOTER FRAUD THAT IS GOING ON IN KEY BATTLEGROUND STATES!:
http://www.foxnews.com/video2/video08.html?maven_referralObject=3129737&maven_referralPlaylistId=&sRevUrl=http://www.foxnews.com/politics/
DON'T SAY THAT I NEVER WARNED OF OBAMA'S NEFARIOUS CAMPAIGN!

You may not like Bill, but sometimes you have to love him!
http://www.foxnews.com/video/index.html

More on the voter fraud in Ohio:
http://www.foxnews.com/video2/video08.html?maven_referralObject=3128354&maven_referralPlaylistId=&sRevUrl=http://www.foxnews.com/politics/

voter fraud in Ohio:
http://www.foxnews.com/video2/video08.html?maven_referralObject=3126975&maven_referralPlaylistId=&sRevUrl=http://www.foxnews.com/politics/

A man of great wisdom:
http://www.atlah.org/broadcast/manningreport.html

Obama's dirtiest, darkest secret!:
http://larrysinclair.org/

Mr. Gerson-
Please define the word ???elite??? in your own writing as you this term frequently throughout your article. Referring to a dictionary (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/elite 9/29/2008), elite is:
As a NOUN (this is person, place, or thing - in case you forgot):
1. The choice or best of anything considered collectively, as of a group or class of persons.
2. Persons of the highest class: Only the elite were there.
3. A group of persons exercising the major share of authority or influence within a larger group: the power elite of a major political party.
4. A type, approximately 10-point in printing-type size, widely used in typewriters and having 12 characters to the inch.
As an ADJECTIVE (this is a word that modifies NOUNS (see definition above)):
5. Representing the most choice or select; best: an elite group of authors.
Seeing as you use elite as both a NOUN and an ADJECTIVE, I will wager that you are not referring to Obama as a font type. The other definitions describe elite as a person or persons that are superior to others by some measure, usually wealth and/or power.
How do see you Obama as elite and Palin (and by association McCain) not? You specifically say Obama lacks governing experience. To govern indicates participating in and/or belong to a group of persons that controls a majority share of authority. In other words governing is part of the elite equation by definition. So Obama is elite, yet lacks a necessary ingredient?
You say the Senate is the most exclusive club in America and joining this club makes Obama elite. Consider this: To say that the Senate is a club of elitists indicates they are a group controlling the majority share of authority. In other words, they govern. So, Obama has no governing experience, yet participate in a club that by definition governs?
How does one manage to do this? What does this make Senator McCain? FYI, Senator indicates McCain belongs to the same club as Senator Obama. So McCain must be elite but lacking in governing experience as well, correct? Governor Palin belongs to a rare group herself, that of governors. What does that make her?
Please clarify the following comment for Palin and Obama:
"If Palin's governing résumé is thin, Barack Obama's is thinner. If Palin's lack of experience is meaningless, Obama's case to be commander in chief is strengthened" (Gerson 2008).
How is Palin's political experience superior? How is Obama's inferior? In what ways and to what degree? How is serving as a mayor and a PTA official superior to serving as a Senator? How is a Senator inferior?
Please BE SPECIFC since you writing seems to be lacking in that department. FYI, by be specific I mean reference AND cite sources!

Sources:
Gerson, Michael. "Starbuck Does Not Equal Savvy." Newsweek. 2008. Newsweek. 29 Sep. 2008 <http://www.newsweek.com/id/160085>
"elite." Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1). Random House, Inc. 30 Sep. 2008. <Dictionary.com

Fareed Zakaria addresses the real issue: Palin's complete lack of qualification. But for the wannabe-Rev. Gerson, all roads lead to the abortion question. Palin is a fetus worshipper, so her "values" must be celebrated. If she were not, Gerson would be deriding her inexperience. Newsweek doesn't need regular contributions from such a megalomaniac.

Another absurd propaganda piece. First to address the lie "If Palin's governing resume is thin, Obama's is thinner..." Obama's political experience, his work in the legislative body is dedidedly NOT thinner than Ms. Palin's, If you insist on equating "governing" a small small town in the wilderness and then the least populated state, in the wilderness as having the experience to qualify for the top executive position in the country, then you've effectively dumbed down the discussion to the absurd. Something the Republican machine excels at.

My dog-eared copy of Webster's Dictionary defines "elite" as, " the choice part; the best of a class; the socially superior part of society; a group of persons who by virtue of position or education exercise much power or influence." I would have consulted my pristine Funk & Wagnall's but feared that it might be too elitist to do so.

Sarah Palin, by definition, is an elitist. The governorship of Alaska is the choicest political part (she garnered the most votes and was chosen to be Governor), she is socially superior (governors are not nearly as accessible as mayors), and she does, by virtue of her position as Governor, exercise much power and influence.

Sarah Palin claims to be a populist, which my Webster's defines as "a believer in the rights, wisdom, or virtues of the common people". Her anti-abortion stance absolves her of any claim to populism, as that stance assumes that a common woman does not have the wisdom nor the right to choose what is best for herself or her family.

Sam Harris is correct to assail Governor Palin's religious beliefs, as they evidently control her political leanings. A true populist would keep their religious ideals out of consideration when making policy decisions.

Evangelicals in particular are abhorrent because of their hypocrisy. They decry elitism and castigate liberals, yet they believe that only they are following the "correct" path to God. Evangelicals like Sarah Palin are the worst kind of elitists: a group of people who have merely decided that they are the morally superior part of society, with no achievements or qualifications to justify their opinions of themselves.

The author uses the term "elite" thirteen times in a rather short article. One would think he was beating that word pretty hard. Too bad he failed to define it. The word means "Best" as in most intelligent, most capable, most talented. You know, like we used to define the Marines or the Navy SEALS. The Elite Military. The best of the best. How this term came to mean.... people we don't agree with, is a mystery.
What we have is a method of deflecting the criticism by marginalizing the opinion of those who would criticize. Who cares what he thinks, he's just a (insert label here) liberal, elite, west coast, east coast, ivy league, community organizer. Of course you never answer the criticism, you just fail to address ot acknowledge it. Great political gamesmanship and namecalling but terrible governance.

Is this article a joke? The reason people are up in arms about Palin is simple and has nothing whatsoever to do with 'elitism'. It is because she is TOTALLY UNQUALIFIED to be a potential president of this country. One cannot take a crash course in judgment, intellect, experience, foreign affairs, and whatever else the Bush McCainites are cramming onto her 3 x 5 study cards. Her 'qualities' may have been fine enough to get her elected in Alaska, but those very 'qualities' are not only underwhelming, but actually frightening to many of
those you choose to call elitists. Now, more than ever, our country is in need of one of your so-called elitists to get us out of all the messes our non-elitist president has gotten us into these past eight long years.

Face the facts -- Bush has been a train wreck, and enduring another "accident waiting to happen" administration, a la McPalin, could potentially destroy America.

Is this article a joke? The reason people are up in arms about Palin is quite simple. It is because she is TOTALLY unqualified to be a potential president of this country. One can't take a crash course in judgment, intellect, experience, foreign affairs, and whatever else the Bush-McCainites are cramming onto her 3 X 5 study cards. Her 'qualities' may have been fine enough to get her elected in Alaska, but those very 'qualities' are underwhelming, as well as frightening, to many of those you choose to call elitists. Now more than ever, our country is in need of an 'elitist ' leader to get us out of all the messes our non-elitist President has gotten us into for eight long years.

Face facts -- Bush has been a train wreck, and enduring another "accident waiting to happen" administration, a la McPalin, could potentially destroy America.

While I understand that people take admiration in those with similar values, but there are key, agreed-upon qualities that are necessary for the office of president of the United States, which typically includes an interest in foreign policy and economics. The presidency (and hence, the vice presidency) isn't an average Joe job. It is a position has insurmountable pressure and the ability to display poignant judgment and make coherent decisions on behalf of 300 million Americans (and understand the greater scope on the rest of the world) is key. There is a reason that we have only had 43 presidents in our history and there is a reason that most Americans don't possess secret admirations for the top job. Americans have to come to the reality that not every skill and value set is predestined to fall in line with the presidency - if we can't do that, then we don't deserve the title of the "greatest country in the history of the world."