Matt, I’ll come across as partisan, but, simply put, this choice troubles me. Isn’t just getting the label “thinks outside the box” exactly the point of Sen. McCain’s pick? If you were looking at a foreign political system, you’d have no trouble suggesting that conservative blocks may have few qualms about selling their country down the river in the way they recruit for elections. It strikes me this is almost directly in line with the practices behind the last (disasterous) ticket that the Republican Party fashioned: “All it takes to make sure we’re the ones running the country is a back-room decision to groom some completely untested candidate based on poll numbers alone.”

By contrast, Sen. Obama is young, but in every public test so far has proven his brilliance as an orator, and demonstrated he tends to be a very level-headed “decider.” He even beat the establishment Democratic Party candidate as an outsider! That’s the mark of major leadership potential.

I can see that it will be easy to portray Sen. Biden as a loose cannon compared to Gov. Palin, and, in practical terms, that ought to be enough to neutralize the advantage that the Democrats may have from their V-P choice. (That’s, of course, the consequence to the Democrats of having teamed with Biden, not the consequence of the Republicans having teamed with Palin.) But does Palin have obvious negatives?

My counsel to the Obama campaign would be to skirt the “experience” issue and define what “assets” the VPs bring to the work of the executive branch. First, are we to believe she’s on par with Sen. Biden — that she’s already jelled with McCain, and is someone like the other VP, who is not only exceptionally informed, but will speak her mind to the Prez when tough decisions are in order? Consider also that the Congress may well continue to have a Democratic majority. Apropos of your earlier critique of Sen. Biden, you could just as easily turn the criticism around and say of her, “She’s no Dick Cheney.” In fact, she’s a potential White House liability in dealings with a Democratic Congress. (And I’m kind of surprised that you haven’t levelled this leadership critique at Gov. Palin, the same way you pointed this out about Sen. Biden recently.)

It was incredibly astute of you to point to the risk that Gov. Palin may seem out of place in the next few months — I imagine a bit like GHW Bush using a barcode scanner in the checkout line. “Gee, is THAT what VPs are for?”

It’s great to see the parties breaking down barriers, but on the other hand, regardless of Gov. Palin’s personal qualities, this decision smacks of charity — it doesn’t look like the career path of a woman who’s earned her status in national politics, but the heavy marketing of a still-empty pantsuit. As you note, maybe it is because the Republicans still have such a thin field. Maybe she’s the only Republican woman who wasn’t already tainted by some kind of personal scandal. (Obama didn’t seem to have many options either. Sibelius is a bore, and Napolitano and Clinton both have the baggage of controversy.) This is a decision strictly for the bounce, and Gov. Palin might even come to be portrayed that way. But that’s wishful thinking. Women can rightfully support the Republican Party decision to put a woman on their ticket. And the media can’t reach voters’ conclusions for them, just parrot what’s being spouted by both parties.

Have a great Labor Day weekend!