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."