O, for a brokered convention!

Although fraught with many perils, this would be a wondrous thing.

Why? The sheer grandeur of the thing, for one. The reminder of pluralism would be another.

Deep, deep, in the American consciousness is a winner-take-all, get-rich-quick mentality. It's the dark side of the mythic solitary individual. Good traits have attendant dark sides and focusing on either to exclusion is a bad thing. Thus, it's fun to experience the joy of optimistic trends and the triumphing over wickedness, but it's also important to be wary of exuberance and aware of mitigations to what seems to be evil.

But enough abstraction.

Why is a brokered convention a good thing at this time? Well, here are a few reasons, in no particular order.

It keeps the conversation open; there are MAJOR differences among the contenders' policies and personalities, and a proper airing of them takes time.

It keeps the enemy guessing; were a candidate-presumptive to be crowned on Super-duper Tuesday, the reactionaries would have nine months to focus their ugliness on the poor sap chosen as a standard-bearer. I wouldn't wish that on a sub-prime appraiser.

It shows us who has the true, best political chops for the job: to advocate him/herself while opposing others in the most effective way. It allows time for the messages and spirits of the campaigns to evolve. It sucks media attention away from sports and star breakdowns and hopefully inculcates some awareness and personal stake in people's minds and hearts.

It will underline the significant regional differences in culture and taste, something that should be reminded regularly in an age of homogenization that falsely suggests that we will all seamlessly blend together at one point. It will allow generally disenfranchised states to have a true say in the process, and will reward the states that didn't stampede to the starting gate by having their late votes be extremely prized as the season draws to a close. Imagine that.

It will expose the dark and greasy dealings of the smoky back rooms and teach us all a series of lessons--good and bad--about how the system works. It will also dispel the crappy modern rush to judgment that demands pronouncements upon little more than first impressions. I'm tired with a faddish, bottom-line driven, instant gratification world of instant media; it's an inaccurate mirror of the human condition and it systematically tramples anything of complexity or sophistication.

On top of all that, I have to admit that I will get a nasty bit of vengeance thrill out of watching Michigan and Florida sit helplessly in a whirl of energy and influence that involves every other state to a great degree, and have their huge and powerful blocs be nothing more than a footnote, all because of trying to screw the system. That's my schadenfreude speaking, and it comes from the same place as my liberalism: a belief in one's word, in working within the rules and in respecting others by making one's intentions known. It's akin to signaling lane changes: nothing short of consideration of others and a commitment to keep everyone moving along on their respective ways.

To my friends in those states who're suffering for this childishness, I offer my condolences.

The extreme dangers of a brokered convention are also not to be taken lightly: should it break down to the most likely scenario of three with sizable numbers of delegates and somehow the one chosen is not the one with the most or even with the second-most, there could be true ugly rancor, especially since any version of this would have a racial/gender quotient to it. Hopefully, the balloting will be aboveboard enough that this will all be out in the open, but we could be in for some nasty surprises.

Whatever. Many of us have pointed out the possibility of this, but there's now a much greater one.

From a truly impartial perspective, though, it's damned good theatre, isn't it?

They produce battered nominees who are weakened by the fray. Amd the differences between the candidates policies are actually quite slight. It makes me wonder if you've actually done your homework.

At any rate, it won't happen. You'll be disappointed. I'll be pleased.

homework and I assume the OP has as well.I don't assume all others are stupid.

there candidate is too broke to compete over the summer.

Just calling it as it is, thems da breaks.

Then again, perhaps anything short of a resounding walkover just can't slake the craving. Today must be a drag.

Not a good idea at all with an August convention.

If the 'Pukes settle their race early, then we all know who the enemy is "after Labor Day", and the entire Democratic party should plan accordingly.

On the other hand, the 'Pukes wouldn't know WHO they were facing. They wouldn't have the opportunity to wage a 9 month slime campaign like they did against Kerry.

By my line of reasoning, it'd be best if they crown their champion on February 5th, while ours is unknown until the convention. We'd have the nine months to deride, research, ridicule, coherently refute and otherwise hector whoever the cluck-of-the-walk may be, while they won't have a target until the very end.

What makes you think a candidate can't be campaigned against without one's own being announced? You have, of course, heard of the obscure and archaic tactic called the "attack ad", haven't you?

And yeah, its damned good theatre!