This is political, so read it at your own "risk" . . .

October 06th, 2008 | 09:01 am

[The following is my response to Peggy Noonan's opinion piece featured on the Wall Street Journal's website. Go here to read it now: "Palin and Populism."]

Very well done piece — she loses me a little in the final 3 paragraphs, but the opening exactly captures why she really did win last night. She didn't just win just because she didn't implode (like with the CBS hatchet job/"editing" on her by Katie Couric)… she won because she was charming and connected extremely well to those in the Heartland, DIStrustful of Washington and the Cultural Elites. Those are the Soccer Moms and other Reagan voters who called their Congressmen earlier this week to disrupt the "Bailout" vote. The "Financial Rescue Package" (what it should have been called) will probably pass the House today, but I'm not so sure Americans aren't ready to elect some "outsiders" to Washington next month . . . to disrupt the "politics as usual" that we've seen over the years, regardless of who's in charge. A 9% approval rating for Congress (less than half of even Bush's at the moment) certainly suggests people are unhappy with the Beltway Gang . . . Pelosi and Reid should be embarrassed by their own ineptitude.

In marketing, like in politics, people ultimately "buy" or vote for people like themselves. Contrary to popular opinion, we're such a meritocracy in America that most Americans aren't looking for a "savior" in their elected leaders. Nobody is really ever "above" anybody else here. Americans would rather have a "regular person" just like them, who represents them and probably thinks like they think on most things — this simple reality explains Bush II over Kerry and Gore and it also explains Clinton over Bush I and Dole. The "who-would-you-rather-have-a-beer-with" approach to elections, if you will. And the Media Elites, by the way, absolutely HATE this notion, because it negates their years of "accomplishments" and of their constant striving in search of journalistic excellence — all that extra schooling and researching and schmoozing. The "people are people" notion is utterly lost on the Elites of each coast as well. If nobody is ever really "above" anybody else in America, then what was the point of all their striving anyway? This is why Obama fits in perfectly with the Elites (let's face it: he IS their guy) when he preaches to people in Scranton one day, then makes fun of them (for their religion and guns) in San Francisco later. He went to their schools; he bought into their philosophies; he pandered to the "little people;" now, he makes fun of the "little people."

Despite their arguments to the contrary, the Cultural Elites believe only Limousine and Lear Jet Liberals like them should be ruling this country. Ordinary people need not apply — they aren't really worthy anyway . . . in their view. Buy their votes with universal health care and support their unions to "trap them" in their wage brackets — this is the strategy employed. Chastise all for-profit endeavors as "greedy" and "unsavory" and only teach students to become employees, not employers . . . so entrepreneurship is stifled and more people will rely even more on the State. Sad, but true — this dynamic perfectly explains the differences between the two camps. One wants to smother us with more government so in some Orwellian sort of way, we can just go back to our reality shows; while the other one wants to decrease government intervention in more areas (there IS such a thing as good regulation and also such a thing as bad regulation) and let the People actually decide things for themselves. One side trusts us; while the other side is positive we're just children and ought to be treated as such. Do we really want people who think they're "better" than us and should be deciding for us (the modern-day equivalent of the Ruling Class — what I thought we fought Britain a couple centuries ago to get rid of) making these important decisions? Or do we want people that are more like us who'll probably do as well as we would if put in that situation, by using a little, good old-fashioned common sense?

I think this race just got tighter, which is rather shocking to say about a VP debate, but Governor Palin's proven she's "worthy enough" for the office, and she's certainly proven that she's just like us . . . not some Washington insider of 20 to 30 years. Now it should only come down to the issues and who the voters think will execute on those issues: a Maverick Senator (honestly, who's Biden kidding last night to suggest otherwise?!?) of 20-some years who's a bona fide War Hero with the "Cool Mom Next Door" who also happens to be an Energy Policy expert and a Governor; OR a Community Organizer-turned-six-years-in-politics U.S. Senator with the amazing oratory skills of a preacher and his 30-year Washington Insider side-kick. Neither are "perfect" choices, but we need to stop thinking that one really exists in the first place.