Don’t Cite The Rules If You Haven’t Read Them

Jerome from Mydd has a must read about Obama’s supports accusing Clinton of trying to change the rules and “overthrow” Obama’s nomination.

The paragraphs below lay out the story better than I can, but the bottom line is that winning the most pledged delegates leading up the convention DOES NOT NOR HAS IT EVER MEANT, that you are the nominee. Those aren’t the rules. Sorry you’re playing the wrong game. The DNC rules explicitly state that the path to the nomination involves three parts. State campaigns, the credential committee, and the super delegates votes. The rules were set up like this to intentionally create a tiered nomination path

Big Tent Dem

If Obama is the pledged delegate leader and the untainted popular vote leader, then I will be up in arms if the Super Delegates deny him the nomination. But I do not claim for a second that this violates the rules. It clearly does not. The whining about the existing rules comes from Kos and Josh Marshall and other die hard Obama supporters. THAT is a fact.In essence, what some Obama supporters are arguing for is CHANGING the rules so that the pledged delegate leader is the nominee. Maybe we can adopt that rule for the next nomination fight. But we won’t for this one. Instead, JUST LIKE the Clinton campaign, the Obama campaign and its online supporters are arguing for what they think the Super Delegates should do.

Trickster from Mydd

I’ve just read posts from several people complaining that Obama’s not trying to change the rules, or that Obama’s not saying that Clinton is trying to change the rules.

I think you folks are misreading this post. Look at it a little more closely. This is a post about Obama’s adherents’ complaints that Clinton is trying to “change the rules.”

Does this happen? Hell yes. Just look at Mojo Risen’s post a few above this, timestamped 6:42:08 EDT, and I daresay that if you just look around this site you will see it over and over. Kos is constantly saying that Clinton can only win the nomination by a “coup,” which clearly implies that she would be overthrowing the existing regime, i.e., changing the rules, if she wins by superdelegate vote, or if she succeeds in getting the FL and/or MI delegations seated.

Heck, if you don’t believe that, then check out this Google search: 177,000 hits for [Hillary (“changing the rules” OR “change the rules”)].

Superdelegate votes and credentials fights alike are clearly provided for under the existing rules. Winning the superdelegates votes or winning a credentials fights are not changing the rules, they’re just winning the game with the current rules.

I’m all for changing the game to have better rules, but for right now we’re stuck with the game we’ve got. For this game, the rules are what they are, and I would be greatly obliged if those who like to complain about Hillary’s desire to change them would take some time first to familiarize themselves with what they really are.

Otherwise, feel perfectly free, as Jerome suggests, to argue that metrix X, such as leading in pledged delegates, should be the metric that superdelegates use. Just please refrain from making the factually incorrect claim that the use of some other metric would constitute “changing the rules.”


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s