Clinton, Obama, Edwards-Rock, Paper, Scissors

Since we are obviously faced with weeks and weeks of diaries where my candidate walks on water and your candidate is the pond scum beneath their feet, I thought it might be worthwhile to come up with a different means for evaluating candidates and perhaps determining the party's nomination for president.

To whit, I would recommend that from this point forward, at any point where a diary gets into a candidate pissing contest and exceeds 50 comments, a moritorium is placed on future entries and an immediate game of rock, paper scissors is instituted between a champion chosen for each candidate.

Round robin, first champion to 1,000 then earns the right to close the diary, making the final comment in favor of their candidate.

Diary wins will be accumulated and, if no candidate has won enough delegates by the start of the convention, the candidate with the most wins in my rock, paper, scissors derby will be automatically given the nod.

Play fair, play often and may the most agile candidate's representative win.

•  How about Chutes and Ladders?

  or candy land?  LOL!

  "Time is for careful people, not passionate ones"

  by roseeriter on Sat Jan 26, 2008 at 02:36:45 AM PDT

  •  i think....

    texas hold 'em would be more appropriate.

    by nonnie9999 on Sat Jan 26, 2008 at 02:39:08 AM PDT

•  They all three walk on water ...

  ... its just that when John Edwards walks on water, he feels his wet feet with every fiber of his soul.

  by BruceMcF on Sat Jan 26, 2008 at 02:44:16 AM PDT

  •  Or is that

    every fiber of his soles?

    ;-)

    by x on Sat Jan 26, 2008 at 03:05:15 AM PDT

    •  Don't be silly ...

      ... if he was feeling that, he'd be feeling his wet feet with all the fibers of his soles. He learnt to talk purty at college.

      by BruceMcF on Sat Jan 26, 2008 at 08:33:09 AM PDT

•  Love your headline...

  ...wish I thought of it.

  by demwords on Sat Jan 26, 2008 at 02:48:13 AM PDT

•  literal-minded

  How would you play it on a diary?  

  Umm... I guess you could do an md5 thing.  Like, I just picked one.  And I typed it into an md5 generator.  And I came up with this string:

  8ab72cad70452b256c9b4f4e4fed6e1a

  So, someone else just reply with a comment picking rock, scissors, or paper.  Then I'll be able to tell you what I picked, and prove it so you know I'm not cheating.

  (md5 generator here: http://www.adamek.biz/...

  sorry I get geeky after midnight

  by tunesmith on Sat Jan 26, 2008 at 02:48:54 AM PDT

  •  7e3f660480ab1640de8024c200b5a4d3

    by kansasr on Sat Jan 26, 2008 at 04:32:16 AM PDT

    •  ok uh...

      I picked rock, as you can see by md5'ing "I pick rock".

      by tunesmith on Sat Jan 26, 2008 at 07:38:34 PM PDT

      •  ANd I picked PAPER

        lol

        Something tells me my scheme didn't catch on!

        by kansasr on Sun Jan 27, 2008 at 08:14:41 PM PDT

•  Awesome idea

  The DNC should totally adopt this for caucuses.

  by eleanora on Sat Jan 26, 2008 at 02:49:29 AM PDT

•  This will do it. Finally!

  A really viable solution to the insane primary wars.

  Can't wait for Feb. 5! At least it'll happen, unlike Fitzmas.

  by doinaheckuvanutjob on Sat Jan 26, 2008 at 03:45:23 AM PDT

•  Even if Hillary Can Win (Dubious), Dems Lose.

  Here's my contribution to get to 50:
  Let's say by some miracle, Romney is nominated and Hillary manages to eke out a win by running with Bill at her side for a third Clinton term (which is, of course, the only way she could possibly win anything at all). Then what? Then every Republican congressman and senator would take every chance of screwing her and Bill. Stalemate. No legislation passed. Repubs take over Congress in 2010, the White House in 2012. End of Democratic Party.

  Even if she wins, we all lose.

  Why do we want this ridiculous nepotist as our nominee? Her candidacy is a joke. She actually has less of a record of public service than Bush did! In fact, if she's nominated, she'll have less EXPERIENCE in government than any nominee in either party in at least a hundred years, with the exception of Eisenhower, who had other, far more substantial experience to recommend his administrative abilities.

  Her lack of experience wouldn't matter IF SHE WEREN'T MAKING EXPERIENCE THE CORNERSTONE OF HER CAMPAIGN! I mean, this is a really unfunny joke on our democracy!!

  Really, you have to wonder about the intelligence or sanity of any Democrat voting for her. Her candidacy is a backwoods embarrassment, like when Lurleen Wallace ran for governor of Alabama.

  by LongTom on Sat Jan 26, 2008 at 04:16:28 AM PDT

•  That's pretty apt

  The three candidates present an unsolvable conundrum for would-be rabble rousers. Obama has the anti-war card (call it the i-rock) against the scissors of Clinton and Edwards. Even Edwards stand vs. Clinton on Iraq among "progressives" is built a little on paper, him being a co-sponsor of the war bill. And with Obama's adulation of the "party of ideas" and other overtures to the right wing, his progressive cred is very suspect, despite voting the right way usually. Hillary's ProgressivePunch score of 91% (higher than Obama's) undermines any lame attempt to portray her as a "centrist."

  by jmknapp on Sat Jan 26, 2008 at 04:31:24 AM PDT