"...Everything is happening as though the course of the world and its social and economic difficulties were produced by some inaccessible elites who victimize the real people." ...yes but there are 'inaccessible elites' and those use politics and media to label others as 'elite' to deflect the focus from themselves and their cronies.

The Right has successfully pulled off a trick that elementary school children should be able to get: that of accusing others of coing what you yourself are doing--or being what you yourself are. So we hear about elitism attacks by full-on elitists; family values from those who attack the well-being of ordinary families from all sides; of being tax-and-spenders while yourselves bankrupting the nation for generations to come and loading taxes (by starving states of federal funds so they have to increase taxes and fees) onto the middle class and--worse--the poor. And on and on. Classic Rove. However, Bill Clinton turned the TV airwaves over to the Far Right in 1998, and we are living with the results: TV as a propaganda arm of the Far Right.

This article strangely omits the predominant place that race has in the U.S. (and capitalism). Race clothed in the shiny patina of class is what Palin and her crew used to work up the RNC to a frenzy worthy of a Clan rally during Reconstruction. And can people please stop praising black politicians as " ...exceptionally brilliant orator(s)." This type of comment is a ubiquitous example of the way race moves in this society, and is the echo of the racist comment that Joe Biden made about Obama being "articulate."

It is baffling that all of this anti-elitist talk spews from the mouths of society's most fortunate; those with money, fame, power and influence...and the support of their fellow elitists who helped put them there. Someone who presumes Senator Obama to be elitist is far more so for making such an accusation. This is not to say that a black American cannot be elitist in his/her own right, but when one is labeled as such by a white, middle-aged conservative millionaire from a stage in front of millions of people, then you have to wonder "if you're not the elite, then who in God's name is...? "

If it takes an annual income (or inherited fortune) of five million dollars or greater to be "elitist," then McCain has a much better claim to that label than Obama. But the distortion of the meaning of the word "elite" - the best, exceeding all expectations or hopes - shows the depth of how deeply Americans have taken to heart the idea that mediocrity and incompetence must be the unchallenged standards of the day.

Missing the point of the article Many of the comments on this article are assuming that the author of the paper understands "elite" as rich people. This is a complete misuderstanding. "Les Echos" is a french business newpaper, similar to the Wall Street Journal or the Financial Times. Its readership is formed of businesspersons, bankers and entrepreneurs who generally hold center-right to right-wing views. This people are part of the European economic elite, and understand fairly well that the Republican party does not have anything against the American economic elite. In fact, the elite that the author of the paper is talking about is the cultural or intellectual elite. The article is emphasizing the fact that Barack Obama is a graduate from a top university in the US. The last paragraph is drawing a parallel with European polticians also running against supposed cultural or intellectual elites. The "technocrats" referred to in the sentence about the French presidential elections are either graduates from the National School of Administration (who typically work as prefects, with powers similar to those of a US governor but directly appointed by the governement, inspectors of the Treasury, and various high level non-partisan governement positions) or graduates from the Polytechnic School (who occupy positions in industry, defense, road construction etc...). There is a paradox here (not pointed out in the paper), that most important politicians in France are actually graduates from the National School of Administration (to name a few: Jacques Chirac, Dominique de Villepin, Lionel Jospin, Ségolène Royal) but all of them are pretending to run against the elite. Similarly, in the recent election in Italy, Silvio Berlusconi was running against Romano Prodi, a retired university professor. The last two sentence should make this point in the article extremely clear. Politicians are claiming to be running against an unsensitive intellectual elite that is illegitimately (since it is not democratic elected) running the world, and that they are the only ones feeling the suffering of the people in the world. The article ends comparing this elite to the alchemists, making it clear that what distinguishes this elite from the common man is not wealth but a mysterious and frightening knowledge. What the article fails to note is that this attitude is not new. During the Dreyfus affair, intellectuals (such as writers Anatole France or Emile Zola) took the party of the captain Dreyfus against army and governement. The monarchist Action Française (which was against Dreyfus) then declared that Dreyfus was only supported by the people who live in libraries and that it represented the real country against the "legal" country (i.e. the institutions of the 3rd republic). More recently, the movement of Pierre Poujade, in the 1950s attributed the misfortunes of the shopkeepers to the intellectual elite (and especially the graduates of the Polytechnic School). Nowadays, some members of the National Front view with suspicion people who have studied in high school or at university, suspecting them of being cut from realities, and holding socialist views. To sum up: the article is drawing a parallel between the traditional anti-intellectualism of european conservatives and of a part of the european left, and the anti-elite discourse of the Republican Party in the US. Implicitly, the author is assuming that elite is not defined in terms of material wealth, but in terms of cultural wealth (i. e. level of education, high level non-partisan position in governement or industry, membership of a network of alumni of a prestigious higher education institution etc...). This double-entendre of the word "elite" may not have been perceived by the readers.

To "Missing the Point-": Sorry, but we read it as translated, and I think that both you and the authors of the article miss the point if you do not understand that this is America, not Europe, and if you do not have money in this country, it is going to be a lot harder to get the education to qualify as "elite" by your definition. In many parts of Europe, where education is provided by the State, one need only have brains and ability. Here, we have many more uneducated people with brains because they can't afford the education. The reverse is also true: witness the occupants of the White House. W went to TWO Ivy-League colleges, and yet look at him. How did he manage it? Simple. Money. -Or look at McCain, son and grandson of four-star admirals, who needed a boost from them to be admitted to the Naval Academy. We are not mis-reading this article so much as applying its arguments to our country, where money is generally (these days, at least) a pre-requisite to become part of any elite. We are farther now than at any time in our history from being a "class-less" society. Much of what you are seeing from the Republicans towards Senator Obama is their resentment that somebody without their level of wealth has managed to climb up to the level where they could properly be called elite. Theirs is the resentment of medieval nobles for a knight that was made on the battlefield, rather than by birth. By referring to Barack Obama as elite, they are hoping to tap into the frustration and resentment of the uneducated but intelligent, who probably all wish they could have had, or made, the same breaks for themselves, the ones that happened to be unlucky at the wrong time, and never got to college, the ones that tried, but ran out of money. It IS all about wealth in this country, despite the efforts by our rulers to hold up the rare exception that "makes something of themselves", subtly suggesting that the rest of us are a bunch of slackers, and conveniently ignoring any help or lucky breaks that the icon may have had to succeed. This country is closer to a medieval society than I think you realize, and the notion of burning witches may become a reality here, and not a metaphor, soon enough. Perhaps we misread the meaning of the authors, but we only did so by applying OUR reality to a badly-explained concept.

Claiming Obama is elitist is just a politically correct way of calling him uppity.

Not to keep things going... but your comment, Another Peasant, about Collin Powell, aside from being annoyingly flip, is another example of the way racism is so intricately woven into North American culture - and by extension the McCain/Palin campaign. Are you unaware of some of the discussion around blacks and "being articulate," or do you feel your perspective is more valid. Also, to say, in America, that sometimes it is just about class is to forget the genesis of this society- particularly as it relates to enslaved native and African peoples. But to say the issues the Republicans are placing on Obama are only about class is simply willful. Have you seen the boxes of "Obama Waffles" they're selling?