A well-stated analysis

An article in the Christian Science Monitor, entitled "Class as a way of understanding Christine O’Donnell and the tea party," comments on (and quotes liberally from) a thoughtful piece by Glenn Greenwald in Salon:

“There are some reactions to the Tea Party movement coming from many different directions – illustrated by the patronizing mockery of Christine O'Donnell – which I find quite misguided, revealingly condescending, and somewhat obnoxious,” he writes, referring to O’Donnell critics of both parties.

“Much of the patronizing derision and scorn heaped on people like Christine O'Donnell have very little to do with their substantive views – since when did right-wing extremism place one beyond the pale? – and much more to do with the fact they're so … unruly and unwashed,” Greenwald continues. “To members of the establishment and the ruling class (like Rove), these are the kinds of people – who struggle with tuition bills and have their homes foreclosed – who belong in Walmarts, community colleges, low-paying jobs, and voting booths on command, not in the august United States Senate.” 

Greenwald observes that Bill Clinton drew the same kind of criticism when he came to Washington. Even though he’d been educated at Yale and Oxford, Clinton had been raised by a working-class single mother, and he “exuded all sorts of cultural signifiers perceived as uncouth.” 

“I'm not defending Palin or O'Donnell; they both hold views, most views, which I find repellent,” Greenwald writes. “But it's hard not to notice the double standard which treats quite respectfully many politicians with the right lineage who espouse views every bit as radical. This is the kind of condescension that causes Sarah Palin's anti-elitism screeds to resonate and to channel genuine resentments.” 

I think this is very well stated.  I recommend reading Greenwald's entire article.