Writing for FoxNews.com, Davis joined the chorus of critics who have assailed the Arizona senator’s VP pick as a cynical, sexist ploy that raises serious questions about McCain’s judgment. The argument may carry extra weight from Davis, however, because of his solid standing among Republicans and past praise for McCain. The “patronizing” pick was just too much for Davis, even from his G.O.P. friend:

Do women care less than men about issues? John McCain (and Sarah Palin) seems to think “Yes.” But the answer, or course, is “No.” Yet there seemed to be that assumption — in my view, if so, patronizing and politically wrong — underlying at least part of Sen. McCain’s judgment.

Davis, who was heralded by some Clintonites for his unyielding support for Hillary Clinton for president, and then for VP, also says the pick’s attempt to woo Clinton backers is dead on arrival:

It appears Sen. McCain hopes that the governor’s gender will help his appeal to disenchanted female Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton supporters — and Gov. Palin explicitly was aiming to do so when she appealed to the “18 million cracks in the glass ceiling” represented by Sen. Clinton’s total vote in the primaries. However, while some Hillary supporters may still not have completely gotten over their disappointment at her loss to Sen. Barack Obama, or his failure to make her his VP choice, is it likely they will be attracted to vote for a McCain-Palin ticket because Gov. Palin is a woman — even after they learn that the governor who, if elected, will be by constitutional definition one heartbeat away from the presidency, and who opposes the right of a woman to choose to terminate a pregnancy under all circumstances, even if caused by rape or incest, in the earliest stages of pregnancy? I don’t think so.

The nation’s eyes turn to Palin tonight. But it doesn’t really matter what she says, ultimately, if people accept the idea that her very selection reflects the kind of bad judgment and political pandering that they would never want in a president.

In an excellent, data-driven analysis, The New York Times’ John Harwood offers a short answer: B.O.A. The pick was purely reactive, he explains, driven by the politics of Bush, Obama and abortion. In his second term, President George W. Bush has exploded the GOP brand:

On Election Day 2004, exit polls showed there were as many voters claiming allegiance to the Republican Party as there were self-identified Democrats. Nearly four years later, surveys show Democrats with an edge of nearly 10 percentage points in party self-identification. To win under those circumstances, McCain strategists calculate that he must draw roughly 55 percent of independents and 15 percent of Democrats, besting the 48 percent and 11 percent that Mr. Bush drew four years ago.

Then there’s the unique challenge of running against a candidate who has consistently enlarged the voting pool:

If Mr. Obama’s mobilization drive succeeds in enlarging the Democratic electorate, Mr. McCain’s hill would grow even steeper.

McCain could have met the above challenge with other seasoned candidates, like former Pennsylvania Gov. Tom Ridge – who might also have helped put the huge swing state of Pennsylvania into play. But since Ridge is pro-choice, Harwood argues that picking him might also bring an early end to McCain’s presidential hopes. The abortion divide is “so deep that even a candidate trying to reinforce his maverick image dare not cross it,” writes Harwood.

If you accept Harwood’s cold, non-partisan analysis, then two conclusions are inescapable:

First, McCain put politics above country in the most important decision of this campaign. (More from Michael Cohen here.)

Second, he is in a far weaker political position than his campaign — and most of the press — have acknowledged. He is in a completely reactionary posture, struggling to respond to realities created by far stronger forces than he can muster – the politics of Bush, Obama and Abortion.