Condi for VP?

You know people are getting bored with the campaign when they start speculating about running mates in April, as the Weekly Standard does here. (Via Memeorandum.)

The most obvious reason why Condoleezza Rice would be a bad choice as a running mate is that she's never been elected to any office. Nor has she ever indicated she wants to be elected to any office.

The Republicans promoting Rice as running mate are obviously thinking like this:

"Hmmm. The Democrats are going to nominate either a black man or a woman. So we can match them by putting a black woman on the ticket."

In other words, they're willing to push the GOP into a "me-too" position, a strategy of imitation. This is the same kind of thinking that led to Bush's Medicare drug-bill disaster. Besides which, John McCain needs a running mate who can, to some degree, mollify conservatives. Rice is not a conservative.

But as I said, it's only April, and this VP talk is just noise at this point. Running mates almost never make any difference in presidential elections. The last time there was a decisive VP effect was in 1972, when George McGovern bungled the Eagleton affair.

UPDATE: Commenter Section 9 appears to be defending the Medicare drug entitlement by saying "It's a very, very popular bill out in the country with rank and file voters." But the fact that something is popular is not an argument in its favor, at least not for conservatives. The bill is a fiscal disaster. A few more "very, very popular" bills like that and "rank and file voters" (i.e., old geezers who want free drugs) will bankrupt the country.

UPDATE II: James Poulos takes a cheap shot, saying that Condi "plays classical piano with a technical focus and mechanical proficiency that wholly disqualifies her from a professional career." I am not a serious aficionado of classical piano, but have seen Condi play on TV, and she seems to plays competently. By what authority or expertise does Poulos pass judgment?