For a number of conservative elites, the honeymoon with Sarah Palin is over. Not so for neoconservative luminary Norman Podhoretz. In a Wall Street Journal op-ed, he argues that conservatives are wrong to sneer at her qualifications for president. He says the "derogatory" response of right-wing intellectuals to Palin is similar to how contemporaries reacted to Reagan, an actor. He concludes, as many have, that "class" snobbery is to blame:

I have reluctantly come to the conclusion that the same species of class bias that Mrs. Palin provokes in her enemies and her admirers is at work among the conservative intellectuals who are so embarrassed by her. When William F. Buckley Jr., then the editor of National Review, famously quipped that he would rather be ruled by the first 2,000 names in the Boston phone book than by the combined faculties of Harvard and MIT, most conservative intellectuals responded with a gleeful amen. But put to the test by the advent of Sarah Palin, along with the populist upsurge represented by the Tea Party movement, they have demonstrated that they never really meant it.

What's perhaps more remarkable is that, in the midst of defending Palin, he makes his own vaguely derogatory qualifications:
Now I knew Ronald Reagan, and Sarah Palin is no Ronald Reagan...

What I am trying to say is not that Sarah Palin would necessarily make a great president...

What she does know--and in this respect, she does resemble Reagan--is that the United States has been a force for good in the world, which is more than Barack Obama, whose IQ is no doubt higher than hers, has yet to learn.