In typically condescending fashion, Obama declined to comment on the substance of Sarah Palin’s criticism of his Nuclear Posture Review, but could not avoid taking a personal shot at her. “I really have no response. Because last I checked, Sarah Palin’s not much of an expert on nuclear issues.” Well, the same might be said of Obama, who imagines that the START treaty will encourage rogue states to forgo their nukes and who prefers unilateral gestures and ingratiation over the robust use (or threat of use) of American power to thwart the Iranians’ nuclear ambitions.

Obama’s disinclination — or inability — to contest his opponents on the merits of their arguments is nothing new. He had no effective retort at the health-care summit to Sen John McCain’s indictment of the sleazy backroom deals, so all he could muster was an insult: “The campaign is over.” And it is hard to recall a White House more addicted to ad hominem attacks — against Palin, Fox News, pollsters, Tea Party protesters. This stems from both arrogance — their opponents are unworthy of substantive debate — and a certain intellectual laziness. They have grown accustomed to the liberal cocoon of fawning media and sycophantic academics who do not challenge their assumptions nor rebuke their inaccuracies. So they slough off critics as rubes and know-nothings.

But here’s the thing: most of the country doesn’t agree with Obama’s domestic agenda and world view. Obama’s dismissiveness is therefore not limited to Palin; it extends to the majority of the electorate. Do you think the voters will notice the contempt with which the president regards their views? Do you think they will be satisfied in 2010 or 2012 when Obama simply sneers at the opposition’s arguments? I suspect not. Stay tuned.