Gallup reports — utterly nearly buried in an article about how Hillary Clinton is America’s most admired woman (not the subject of this post) — that none other than President George W. Bush is America’s most admired man. (Via Instapundit.)

That is the same George W. Bush who lives on Pennsylvania Avenue. Not his father, the mythical super-president invoked by Bill Clinton and others, who used to live there. No; it is that fellow who is such a poor extemporaneous speaker; who is so inclined to cronysim; who has done such a poor job of marketing to the American public his one historic and courageous policy, the Iraq War — that same one.

How can this be? It is taken as a given in both the mainstream press and in any forum in which the elite express their opinions that President Bush is in fact the most contemptible person on the planet, or at least the stupidest. Nothing to admire about the stupid.

Who are these “Americans” who come to such conclusions? Where are they? Is the Gallup Organization some Cheney thing?

It’s easy to write this item, and you may well blame me for plucking the low-hanging fruit. But in truth, you really do have to sit down and ask yourself just how many alternative universes we are all inhabiting. There is no way on earth that I — who admire George W. Bush quite a bit, despite my considerable disappointment in him from time to time — would ever imagine that he was the most admired man in America. I could not fathom that the constant barrage of snark, contempt and calumny directed at this man could not work its way so thoroughly through the populace, even in flyover country, that this could be the result of such a poll.

So yes, it is an irresistible story to comment on, because it is impossible to understate how out of touch the elites that dominate nearly every segment of American life are to what the vast majority of Americans really think and feel. And I mean that in a good way.

Cross-posted at Right Wing News.

Maybe she should go back behind that wall. In a clever piece called “Rush to Judgment,” decently-well-aging Maureen Dowd accuses Rush Limbaugh of jumping in on the Hillary-is-aging-fast bandwagon: “[S]ome conservative pundits who disagree with a woman on matters of policy jump straight into an attack on the woman’s looks or personal life.” It stands to reason that Dowd, known for her swift manufacture of convenient “facts,” probably didn’t even read Rush’s column about Drudge’s now notorious “hag picture,” a piece that is basically sympathetic to Senator Clinton’s visage-related political woes — exactly as predicted:

Now, I want to preface this by saying I know it’s going to get out there. Media Matters is going to get hold of this and they’re going to take it all out of context. We can expect that. It’s a badge of honor when this happens, but for the rest of you, I want you to understand that I am talking about the evolution of American culture here, and not so much Mrs. Clinton.

He then asks a perfectly fair question, and, to his credit, criticizes an unfortunate aspect of American culture:

It’s a country obsessed with looks. The number of people in public life who appear on television or on the big screen, who are content to be who they are, you can probably count on one hand. Everybody’s trying to make themselves look different — and in that situation, in that case, they think they’re making themselves look better. It’s just the way our culture has evolved. It’s the way the country is. It’s like almost an addiction that some people have to what I call the perfection that Hollywood presents of successful, beautiful, fun-loving people. So the question is this: Will this country want to actually watch a woman get older before their eyes on a daily basis?

You can believe Rush asks the question sincerely, Maureen, for a simple reason: His own looks and weight problems have been, for handsome and mature folk like Don Imus and Al Franken, a way to attack Rush without actually wrestling with his impact as one of American history’s most influential media figures, or his message. Rush is speaking to those of us who have a face for radio, and asking a question about whether this country is capable of choosing merit over looks. Ed Morrisey, incidentally, questions the premise of this claim — and makes a very compelling argument that it’s wrong.

Ironically, it’s fairly common knowledge (does anyone deny it?) that women are far more likely to vote looks than men are. And the reaction of women to Hillary Clinton is complicated. But the worst thing Rush Limbaugh can be accused of here is acknowledging that this picture exists, and that it could have a political effect. For Maureen Dowd, however, actually reading, comprehending and considering a Rush Limbaugh essay is out of the question. He’s all fat and stuff.