Howard Kurtz is on some sort of dichotomous roll today. First off, he wants you to know that when he talks about his subject — Obama's cabinet drawing criticism for being comprised of Ivy Leaguers — he's coming from an objective position. The Washington Post writer went to a SUNY state school, not some fancy-ass, supper-clubbing Ivy, so he's right there with the millions of Americans who hold a longtime grudge against brilliance and wealth being rewarded in the form of exclusive higher education.

But even though he's a salt-of-the-earth kind of guy (who also happens to write for one of the most prestigious, ELITE papers in our country, and who managed to get a secondary education when 37% of our country does not), he still takes offense when he sees such blatant anti-education criticism.

Now it's certainly fair to question whether the Ivy League denizens live in something of a bubble and lack real-world experience. But couldn't that also be true of folks who went to the University of Michigan or Emory University or UCLA? I think we've fallen into the trap of using Ivy League graduate as a synonym for boneheaded elitists (notwithstanding that Bush 41, Clinton and Bush 43 all went to Yale, Clinton was a Rhodes scholar, and Obama went to Columbia).

Wait, there is something a little off about these stats…what could it be? Besides the fact that Kurtz is using UCLA in opposition to what an Ivy League education is, of course.

Ah yes, lest we forget, the real gem in the conservative argument that just because you went to an Ivy League school doesn't mean you are a genius – just nepotistic – is that George W. Bush went to Yale. Never mind that it was his "aw shucks" colloquial manner of speaking that convinced a majority of Americans that he was just like them, and thus (with this sort of backwards logic), an appropriate choice to lead the country for eight years. No, the anti-Obama rhetoric goes: it is impossible for someone to be both a regular dude and go to an Ivy League school like Yale. Except when it was.