There's been scant evidence of the gentry-left rising to the defense of one of their own, that scion of the Kennedy-Camelot branch of American political-intellectual royalty, Caroline, after her performance in a recent CBS interview. Heck, Caroline makes W. look like a skilled stump speaker.
They could have argued, for example, that this inarticulate woman didn't say "...and stuff" even once. She did say "...ya know" every two seconds for a total of about a hundred or so, according to commentators who actually kept a running count.
It was cringe-producing to watch and hear Caroline. It was also a demonstration of native-language incompetency which wouldn't have been tolerated by the mainstream media (MSM) for a New York minute had it come from the mouth of a Republican.
Consider, for example, the journalistic vitriol poured by the intellectually-superior - just ask them. The MSM over that "dumb-soldier" President Dwight Eisenhower for his use of the then-new verb "finalize" (at a time when such neologisms hadn't yet secured academic recognition). When one of the liberal's own performs far worse, embarrassingly so, the MSM chooses to ignore it. Or, in an isolated case, praise it.
The latter course was taken by New York Times columnist Maureen Dowd. In all seriousness, she argues that such linguistic incompetence shows that her heroine "is not a glib, professional pol who knows how to market..." and that she is, in real life, "...smart, cultivated, serious, and unpretentious." Eh?
Wasn't it grumpy Miss Dowd or one of her gentry-left peers who labeled President Ronald Reagan as "an amiable dunce?"
I suspect that what's going on here is as much based on class as on ideology. Fourth Estaters such as Dowd are advocates of a managed (by them, of course, because they're smarter than us mean-spirited dummies) socio-economic structure.