The XX Factor: What women really think.

But Is Palin Really Worse Than Bush?

First it was David Frum; then George Will followed by David Brooks; then Frum's colleague at the National Review, Kathleen Parker; today, William F. Buckley's son, Christopher jumped on the band wagon. Conservatives everywhere are denouncing McCain's veep pick because, essentially, they think she isn't smart enough to lead the country. True, they focus on the experience or rather the inexperience question, but it's transparent enough that what's sent conservatives into a tizzy is that Palin can't speak let alone process complex ideas. As Parker put it, she's just "Clearly Out Of Her League." I couldn't agree more. But here's what I don't get—since when do conservatives care about smarts? Or, rather, why didn't they care about smarts in 2000 and 2004?

Watching Sarah Palin talk to Katie Couric, and then watching her at the debate (where, admittedly, she did better than expected) gave me déjà vu. She's really very similar to Bush, and it's not at all obvious to me that she's any worse than he is, or was in 2000 and 2004. Maybe Bush isn't stupid, exactly, just lazy. And Palin's not stupid, exactly, either—just supremely uninformed. But ultimately, what's the difference? Either of these qualities should disqualify someone from running the country.

As Leopold Bloom put it (or thought it), "a defect is 10 times worse in a woman." He meant physical defects, but I wonder if this charming bit of sexism applies to mental defects, too. Why is Sarah Palin pushing Christopher Buckley over the edge—he's voting for Obama!—when Bush didn't?