The Three-Arm Baby .

[mrbluto]

A Three-Arm Baby

Have I got your attention?

Ok - here we go:

There's an old fable about two women who claim to be the mother of a baby. Neither refuses to give up their claim so all the townspeople insist they see a judge to settle the matter. In one version of this fable (the one without a sword) the judge orders the following contest to decide the matter:

     "Each of you grab an arm and pull - and we'll see who is the mother, who wants the baby more."

One of the women looks horrified, but takes her place. The other woman takes her place.

They both begin to pull. After only a few moments, the baby cries in pain and the horrified mom lets go. The other woman beams in triumph. She cradles the baby.

     "Not so fast" says the judge. (actually, since this is a fable, he probably said that with more decorum)

     "Give the baby to the other woman."

     "But you said we'll see who the mother is with the tug-of-war!" said the woman holding the baby.

     "We did - the one who couldn't stand to hurt the baby, the one who would sacrifice even motherhood for the baby's sake - that's the true mother."

I think you can see where I'm going with this.

The Democratic nomination is a three-armed baby.

(Metaphorically speaking. I had to make that clear for some. You know who you are.)

Edwards let go first.

We're watching to see who lets go second. It ain't easy for either of them.

The only sure thing at the moment is that neither of the remaining contenders cared as much as Edwards.

Right now it's a damned if we Obama, damned if we Clinton, sort of situation.

I don't think the supporters of either side is going to support the other if "their guy" doesn't get the nomination.

We can't afford to give up that support. We're going to need that support. Maybe not to win the general election, but to give the next Democratic President the Mandate he or she needs to fix whats gone on, to have the tools necessary to tame corporate greed, and to whip some spine into a legislature that has shown little actual willingness to take on the fight. I wish we could run someone who hasn't pissed off half the party either directly or by uncontrolled proxy.

There is a way.

We can select a nominee whose campaign hasn't alienated anyone yet. (at least not on the scale that Obama's and Clinton's has)

I think the best thing for the Democratic party, considering how screwed up the nominating process is, is a

Brokered Convention.

There. I said it.

Now a lot of people will feel a need to come out of the woodwork and peck me to death.

Maybe the nominee would be Edwards, maybe Gore - who knows?

Now I await the brick-bats and invective that will be cast my way.

Have at it.

[KittyWampus]

1. LOL! there's nothing screwed up about the nominating process, except Clinton is losing.

[mrbluto]

3. Drive-by Opinion is worthless.

...nothing screwed up about the nominating process

So you say.

I'll take that for what it's worth: squat.

How about backing up what you say?

[KLee]

2. Republicans would like nothing better, no thank you.

[mrbluto]

4. and why would that be?

I actually think they love the current situation.

Why?

(here's where I do what you don't and offer an actual reason for what I think)

They know right now that 40+ percent of Democratic voters are likely to be unenthusiastic, if not unsupportive, of the eventual nominee.

[Kokonoe]

5. So the nomination is the baby

And the woman hurting the baby loses the nomination. By following the fable we know who won the nomination.

[mrbluto]

10. By following the fable...

...we know it's time to apply some judgment.

We know the nomination process is screwed-up if it come to the current state.

Not that Obama and Clinton are the remaining contenders, but that so many people are, and will be, pissed-off by the results.

[Kokonoe]

24. Sorry, but there can only be one winner

Obama has energized this country to stand up.

[mrbluto]

31. Brilliant...........example of rigid thinking.

Which I'm sure would be welcome in the Republican party.

Or an authoritarian regime near you.

I happen to belong to the Democratic party, where we solve problems, rather than resign ourselves to "the way it is and always will be."

[Crunchy Frog]

6. Edwards didn't drop out because he "cared more",

he dropped out because he was losing badly, and didn't have the money to continue.

I hate to say it, but the primary process is not the same sort of thing as deciding which woman is the real mother. Not a good analogy at all. The person who gets the most votes and the most delegates wins, and yes, the contest can get fierce and nasty. That doesn't mean that a person who dropped out early not having won a single state is somehow deserving of the nomination.

[mrbluto]

8. I didn't say Edwards deserved the nomination.

I happen to think he's a reasonable choice. There are others.

[mrbluto]

12. So now you read minds?

How do you know he dropped out because he was losing badly?

There were debates left, and there were many primaries left, and even if he thought he couldn't win then there was an excellent chance he'd have enough delegates to have a significant influence on the platform.

And then there's the six million dollar media buy just before he suspended his campaign.

Imagine someone who quit skiing on a Monday who had bought thousands of dollars of ski equipment the previous Thursday. Something happened over the weekend - and it wasn't that he all-of-a-sudden decided he was losing. He had a record-breaking fundraising month from what I've read. The trend was up. Maybe not winning, but up.

[jgraz]

7. Why do I have this image of Hillary Clinton holding half a baby and declaring victory?

:shrug:

[mrbluto]

9. Because you got it half right.

Obama would be holding the other half the way things are going.

[bellasgrams]

11. A brokered convention is probably the only way a dem can

win. I and all my friends have been completely turned off by BO and his supporters mean streak and don't want any part of him. Especially since we have no confidence in his ability for the job. How could anybody have any confidence in him after he told us of his admiration of Reagan and passed over the democrats. His best bud is Lieberman and admires Reagan so he would make a good repb. I certainly don't want him as President. There are just so many reasons I could go on and on.

[mrbluto]

13. I hear you.

There's plenty of Obama supporters who feel just as strongly about Clinton.

This is unreconcilable with the same-ole-same-old process.

So we're on the same page on the brokered convention thing.

[mrbluto]

14. Spellcheck: has anybody noticed...

...that the spell check recognizes Clinton, but not Obama?

[greguganus]

16. That does it. Spellcheck has convinced me to vote for Hillary. n/t

[mrbluto]

17. Um. Now you're scaring me.

Is it that easy?

Now Microsoft will rule the world.

Arrrrrrrrrrg!

[mrbluto]

15. Spellcheck: has anybody noticed...

...that the spell check recognizes Clinton, but not Obama?

[Ravy]

18. But if it was an 8 armed baby, then Biden would ... nt

[mrbluto]

19. Yep. But I had to draw the line at some number of Arms.

An eight armed baby?

What - are you nuts?

Three is enough.

[berni_mccoy]

20. I DEFINITELY See where you are going: Clinton has done ENOUGH Damage. It's time to give it to Obama

[mrbluto]

21. You got that half right.

Obama's doing his share too. Damage I mean.

[mac2]

22. The primaries and then the conventions don't ever seem to

end. They can't be doing their jobs. $30 Million for Clinton and $50 Million for Obama. Hey campaigning is big business...monkey business.

I'm really sick of it all. I lost my political interest.

[mrbluto]

23. If you agree, then kick this up.

Sad to say this post is going to fall through the cracks because it pissed off both Clinton and Obama people.

I think it's a damn good post, even if I must say so myself.

(but I'm not allowed to recommend it)

[mac2]

32. How do you "kick it up"?

[mrbluto]

33. Recommend it.

[mrbluto]

25. Don't just take my word for it.

If you want a little history about what may be in store, don't belive me, read this post on DailyKos Party Unity Problem

[mrbluto]

26. DK has more class

I have to say.

On DailyKos there seem to be just as many Obama supporters, but at least they're willing to make a case for their position and discuss the issue. They don't like me much there I bet, but if anyone's gonna persuade me to like voting, perhaps even working on the behalf of, Obama it's more likely to happen there.

Here I got no recs and a bunch of drive-by opinionating.

DU is where a discussion goes to die I think.

Unless of course it's composed of people congratulating themselves and each other about how witty and "smaht" they are, and pointing at the splinters in the eyes of others - without taking the planks out of their own eyes.

(Yes Nancy, you're one of those people from what I can tell.)

[crispini]

27. Why do you see the nominating process as screwed up?

Because you're bored with it?

I'll be honest, this is the first year I've ever had a voice in the nominating process, and I'm thrilled. I do think we should move to a rotating system of primaries so all states get a chance to be important.

I don't think we need a brokered convention. I think there will be a clear win on Tuesday. And anyway, a brokered convention would probably NOT lead to someone with NO delegates getting the nom. Furthermore, I think we need to get this over with before the convention. If you're bored now, imagine how you'll feel by August. Ugh.

[mrbluto]

29. Why put words in my mouth?

Did I say I was bored?

No - you did.

I'm anything but bored.

So why put words in my mouth? (Because that makes them less of an effort to refute, perhaps?)

I will say what you mention, rotating the system of primaries, would be a step in the right direction.

I actually have a better idea which I'll post on DKos, but perhaps link to here.

[Ichingcarpenter]

28. I enjoy your effort at a great metaphor

But your analogy is NONMONOTONIC REASONING

[mrbluto]

30. Ahh - good ole' NONMONOTONIC REASONING.

Yes, who doesn't know about NONMONOTONIC REASONING?

You know - a formal logic whose consequence relation is not monotonic. (a property of logic systems that states that the hypotheses of any derived fact may be freely extended with additional assumptions)

Yes, good ole' monotonic logic. I remember way back when I.....

...

...when I...

OK. Fine.

I had to look it up on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-monotonic_logic">wikipedia.

:sarcasm: NONMONOTONIC REASONING :sarcasm:

%$@#*#, Why I oughta....ahem.

Fine.

There's no three armed baby. It doesn't scale.

You blew my whole parable thing there.

And it was going so well.

Are you happy now? <sniff>