The rules also say Michigan and Florida could not hold their primaries before February 5th, yet they did.

...then please excuse me if I stay home in November

Good post, Jerome.

BTD is being intellectually honest, as are you.

For some reason, intellecual honesty seems rare lately in parts of the so-called "progressive blogoshpere."

As one who has no preference, it is easy to see through the fig leafs of the various supporters' arguments.

Obama supporter arguments often are "whatever way Obama can win," but they are hidden in supposed rules of general application.

Clinton supporter arguments often are "whatever way Clinton can win," but they are hidden in supposed rules of general application.

Meanwhile the war between two centrist candidates continues, and and the left is left out of the Democratic Party once again, except when they come calling for our votes.

And with McCain running whichever half of HillObama prevails will get our votes, but it does not mean we have to like it.
 

The rules say Michigan and Florida don't count.

All candidates agreed on those rules.

Now when Hillary is losing, she demands the rules be changed.

Please spare us from pretending that she just wants to change the rules to help the party.

Lets quit denying what she is doing.

Jerome, as seems usual these days...

I don't think anyone on 'Team Obama' (however you want to define that) is arguing that SuperD's vote per whatever at bayonet point.

They're making the SAME ARGUMENT Clinton is trying to make.

Just as Team Clinton is arguing to SuperDelegates to vote X way because of Y, Team Obama is doing the same thing.

I have yet to hear ANYONE on the 'Obama side' of things arguing for any sort of rules change or otherwise remove free will from the SuperDelegates.

The Obama argument is simply that SuperD's should endorse the will of the people.

The fact that Clinton still holds a (shrinking) lead in SuperDelegates should clearly illustrate this....  No one is arguing for removing the ~260 SuperDelegates supporting Clinton from the rolls... No one is arguing that they should expelled from the party, arrested, or anything else.

I have never seen Obama quoted as saying that we should change the rules.  He's offered a suggestion, but he knows that he doesn't make the rules.

So... [citation needed]

More on the point of this article, I do not think anyone believes that the superdelegates don't have the right to change the overall delegate lead by coming out for Hillary.  The argument lies as to whether they should.

Speaking of rules though, like my comment above, the rules also say that the caucuses count (no matter the criticisms of them being undemocratic) and delegates are awarded pursuant to state-driven formulas (and are not necessarily representative when taken as a whole-much like the electoral college).

Just because we don't like all facets of the process doesn't mean we can try and advocate living without some, while embracing the others.

Of course, I agree Hillary would have the legal authority to the nomination if she is behind in pledged delegates, but wins enough super-delegates  to overcome that deficit.  The only issue is if that is the right thing to do and most importantly:

What would be the cost to the democratic party?  That is the question that worries me the most.

Amen.

Obama supporters have tried out the rules every which way, including Obama who tried to say at the beginning the Superdelegates should stay with how their people voted, until some of them gave their support to him despite how their people voted.  And then on to the next plan.

At least it is obvious that Clinton is aiming for all the votes from Superdelegates that she can get, regardless.  She has always said from the beginning that Super Delegates are free to choose for themselves, and that has been her belileve the entire way through.

This primary is not over until all the SuperDelegates have chosen.  Obama is just so afraid that they will follow the rules that he keeps demanding that she drop out. His arrogance is too much for me, and not very subtle.

Team Clinton's lobbying of Superdelegates = Completely fair, within the rules, perfectly legitimate, and just fine-and-dandy-thanky no matter what argument is used to whatever ends.

Team Obama's lobbying of Superdelegates = just terrible, just awful breach of the rules and beyond the pale.

How ironic that Clinton supporters will point to the rules now.

Where was all of this anti-changing rules sentiment when Hillary claimed in late January that FL and MI should count AFTER she had pledged and agreed that they wouldn't count.

If Obama was in this position, the calls for him to drop out would be deafening, and the MSM would pick right up on it.

To be fair, even the most hardcore HRC supporter can admit that, right?

I don't think anyone is trying to change the rules on super delegates, just pressuring them to pick one side or another.  In fact.. I'd like to see when the Obama campaign actually said that the rules regarding super delegates should be changed.

Changing the rules would be more like, say, agreeing that only certain states can hold a primary that will count before February 5th, then arguing that those rogue states should count.  It's even more silly when Harold Ickes is the one making that argument.

There's a difference between saying something is wrong, and saying it's against the rules.  

Everyone knows it's within the rules for the super delegates to vote for whoever they want, even if that person is losing the popular vote and/or the pledged delegate count.  Some super delegates could come out tomorrow and say screw the people's votes, "We're supporting Mike Gravel!" if they wanted to.  That's totally within the rules.  

The question most people are asking these days is whether that's the right thing to do.  Some say that's perfectly apppropriate, and some say that it is not.  Apparently quite a lot of super delegates are in in the later group, a fact that a great many Hillary supporters seem willfully ignorant of.

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."

Speaking of Super Delegates . . .

Has anyone verified that US Rep. Lynn Woolsey is defecting from Clinton to Obama?

I guess I don't see the "whining about the rules" that Jerome does.  As I see it, nobody is whining about the rules, they are simply stating the obvious - that party insiders shouldn't hijack an election from the voters.  Under the rules, they are free to do so.  Just like under the rules, I am free to jam a screwdriver into my left eye.  That doesn't mean either is a good idea.

And frankly, if there's any "disingenuous"ness here, it is in the Clinton camp, constantly whining about "disenfranchising" voters from two states who failed to play by the rules, while simultaneously pursuing a strategy whose only chance of success lies in  disenfranchising the voters from the 48 states that did play by the rules.

I don't see that Obama supporters are arguing that the superdelegates must support the candidate with the most pledged delegates, merely that this is the sanest approach for the party.  While the Obama campaign is stressing this as an ethical point I have not heard the claim that it is a procedural one.

It would seem that Speaker Pelosi's position that pledged delegates are the most significant, in fact the sole, metric for uncommitted superdelegate to consider, when assessing their choice in the party's best interest, is an attempt to disperse the smokescreen of alternatives, popular vote, primary vs caucus weighting and, now, incredibly, electoral collage arguments floated by the Clinton campaign and surrogates in an attempt to find a measure which favours their candidate or her prospects.  This view makes a great deal of sense and would seem, given the 'rules' of the Democratic primary nomination contest, the only sane course between the Scylla and Charybdis facing Democrats who seek to keep the party united for the sake of the general election.  We're in an unanticipated mess and some kind of leadership would seem welcome.  It has been provided.

At the outset of this primary it was a contest for pledged delegates and superdelegates.  Pledged delegates are won in primaries and caucuses, superdelegates are won by endorsement and, presumably, demonstrations of electability and the best interests for the party's chances against the Republicans, which is where all of these other conflicting arguments arise.  But the pledged delegate tallies are clearly the measure by which the nominating contest is decided, the superdelegates are intended as a circuit breaker only.  Why would this fundamental metric for electability have changed during the course of the primary for any reason?  If Hillary was ahead in pledged delegates would we even be having this conversation?  I doubt it.

Superdelegates can support whomever they choose, to be sure, the question is on what basis can they do so without dividing the party further in a worst case scenario such as we now find ourselves.  Pelosi, arguably the 'leader' of the party as far as elected Democrats are concerned, has provided that answer, anything else is merely spin.  Why are we continuing to have this discussion and whose interests are served by questioning the simplest and arguably most sensible solution?

I agree, rules are rules, but the disenfranchisement of the FL and MI voters is wrong.  I don't care how they get included, but to deny people a vote because the state legislatures screwed up is indefensible.

Thank god we didn't get Howard Dean as a president.  He's proved he isn't qualified to run a daycare.

On another note, Kwame Kilpatrick is/was an Obama superdelegate.  http://rezkowatch.blogspot.com/2008/03/o ne-degree-of-separation-obama.html

Kwame and Spitzer just sort of cancelled each other out. That's kinda amusing.

So why include Michigan and Florida in your delegate count? The rules could not be any clearer on their status.

Obama should drop out and extend his vacation.

Clinton is working hard while he cut and ran to the beach.

Nuff said.

I see no one from the Obama camp suggesting the rules should be changed. To ARGUE for their position -- and to argue rationally at that, for, certainly if superdelegates overturned the pledged delegate lead of Obama the result would be turmoil -- is not the same as trying to change the rules in the middle of the game.

As Hillary said a few weeks back: superdelegates can base their decision on any criteria whatsoever. Any argumentation is simply a way of lobbying the superdelegates.

We do respect the rules. Obama's done a great job of amassing pledged delegates according to the rules in place for the same. Yes, the superdelegates have every right to vote for whoever they want to, and Obama's done a great job of making a convincing argument that they should cast their votes to the winner of the pledged delegates.

I'm barely concerned about all of this. Let the states that still need to vote, vote. Let the superdelegates make their opinions known, and let's get to work on the fight against McCain, which is sure to be a battale royale no matter who gets the nomination. As exciting and historic as it has been, I'm pretty tired of this primary campaign.

I wish there were some easy way to bring the two camps together, Obama and Clinton, because I do fear that we're going into the general election campaign divided. Don't know what to do about it actually, the Clintonites feel that Obama some how got over by disenfranchising Florida and Michigan, while the Obama-ites feel like Clinton's trying to change the rules after the fact. Ugggh!!!

Let me join in with the crowd that says that, yes, the SDs CAN do this, but it would be a huge disaster in November unless something horrible happens in the Obama camp.

The Super-delegates have free will to vote how they want.  No one has ever disputed that, despite what Jerome implies.

What IS at issue is the impact of the super-delegates potentially overturning the verdict of a multi-month, nationwide, half-billion dollar primary race in favor of the person who came in second at the end of that process.

Anyone who does not believe the results of such a move would be incredibly self-destructive to the party simply doesn't know dick about politics.

Markos has repeatedly said that the supers can do whatever they want, but that he thinks it would be suicide for them to overturn the pledged delegates.  Just like, I would add, the Clinton supporters argument is that it would be suicide for the supers NOT to overturn the pledged delegates decision.  

I really have no idea why this was worthy of yet another front page post.  Markos thinks Obama has the better argument to the supers.  Clearly Jerome thinks Clinton has the better pitch.  We get it.  Can we move on now and discuss something else?  Maybe, for example, how we can help whoever the hell our nominee is beat McCain?

It's definitely true that the rules are set up to allow the superdelegates to essentially nullify the outcome of the pledged-delegate contest.  It is an extraordinarily powerful veto that the supers hold and it is entirely within the nominating rules of the party.

Where the logic is being blurred is that the question is not whether they could use their votes to select Clinton over Obama but whether they should.  Doing so could easily enrage a signgificant chunk of the Obama supporters and set the party up for internecine warfare we haven't seen since 1968.  

If the superdelegates use their power to choose the candidate with fewer pledged delegates, they had better make a seriously compelling case to the majority of the Democratic party rank and file whose votes are being disregarded.  If the superdelegate cannot make the voters understand their rationale, how do they propose to unite the party and avoid self destructing in November

Clinton and her supporters display an unsettling and cavalier willingness to use this nuclear option; yet their best argument is that the rules allow for it.  That attitude alone makes Clinton a less attractive candidate to me.

Can you cite thorough evidence of Obama blocking the re-votes?

I'm sincerely interested in knowing the full story.

I think that the Obama supporters screaming about a "coup" is due the bad polling that's been coming out post Wright. They are already admitting that Obama is a fatally compromised candidate who should be nominated anyway even though the previous voters knew nothing of his flaws.

Superdelegates should vote their personal conscience. They have that right. However, part of their decision should be the affect on the party.

The argument against having the superdelegates make a decision that goes against the pledged delegate and popular vote counts is not that they can't do it, it is that they shouldn't because the result of that would rend the party in half. That is all there is to it. THAT is exactly why the superdelegates have the power they do.

Did you'll notice that one of the metrics being used to argue that Hillary is being accused of changing the rules (a Google's search) actually picks up as the FIRST reference to this claimed accusation a biography of Hillary published in 1987 (or 1996)?

Makes me wonder how many of these 177,000 hits has anything to do with the election. Sure some do. Perhaps many. But how many?

I just read through this thread twice, three times is too much, and I don't understand how Jerome's point for this post that Kos, Marshall, etc. are persistently pushing their knowingly false claim that Clinton is 'trying to change the rules' even though they clearly understand the rules concerning the powers of the SD's and her's and Obama's comments concerning them. The post is not about the Obama camp saying that or about the Clinton camp saying that the Obama camp is saying that. It's about some folks in the blogospere who support Obama that are doing that. Personally, I think it's unnecessary to add to the deceptiveness and misinformation that will come from campaigns anyway. Their blogs lately have contained many posts along this vein that make very strong and vociferous claims with no effort for back-up or evidence. I grew to rely on blogs such as Kos, TPM, Digby, etc. to keep tabs on the clueless, misanthropic media and their heinous coverage of Bush and his antics. Now they are doing things that I would expect to and gladly see them hang Joe Klein, Cohen, Drudge, etc. for doing.   I hope it changes back, if not before this primary is over, at least afterwards.

Yes, the rules are the rules.  So if Obama gets 2024 pledged delegates and all the supers decide to vote for Hillary Clinton, then yes, by the rules, Hillary will be the nominee, as per the rules.

When Markos uses the word "coup", he does so not to imply that what may transpire would be against the rules, but rather that it would be contrary to the results of the primaries and caucuses, which would have quite a bad result for the party.

So all of this talk about "changing the rules" really doesn't apply--and is especially strange coming from someone who so eagerly advocates changing the rules to seat both Florida's and Michigan's delegates.

...at corrente. its all because of rule zero.

Rule Zero: Any rule that purports to impede Obama's selection as Democratic nominee is not really a rule.

these progressive "gray beards" will somehow work the magic that many ordinary bloggers with nothing to back them up but logic have been unable to accomplish over the past many weeks ... to wit, make the truth as obvious to Obama supporters as it is to the rest of us.

That Obama supporters should no longer be able to attempt to persuade superdelegates that Obama should be the nominee because he won the pledged delegate count?  That in doing so they would be advocating that we "change the rules" of the nomination process?

Honestly, the remaining supers would have to break almost uniformly for Clinton for her to secure the nomination.  Do you think that's even remotely possible?  To my untrained eye, even though it's certainly "within the rules" to do so, it'd still look like a crazy coup, because to me it seems to be entirely beyond the realm of possibility.

At as far as this issue goes.  No thinking person could take the crap he's been spewing seriously (even if, like me, you're supporting Obama). I've essentially retreated to KagroX's and McJoan's work.  

I'm in agreement with Jerome and others who make the case that the superdelegates are part of the equation, and that indeed, Hillary could win the nomination if the SD's decide to give their support to her.  I happen to believe that would have catastrophic consequences for the Party, but that's a political view.  If there are Obama supporters saying that somehow the SD's are bound by the rules to honor the pledged delegate total, then they are wrong.  There wouldn't be any point in having superdelegates if they were confined to simply ratifying the pledged delegate count.

And if we're going to play by the rules, then Hillary can forget about Florida and Michigan.  The rules were laid down by the DNC, and they were very clear.  So let's stick to the rules, and everything will be just fine.

how facts keep getting in the way of all the rhetoric and spin?

Progressive Blue

Democracy, yes. Dynasty, no. That is all you need to know.

I yet, I look to the right of the main page and see the delegate counter including Florida and Michigan.

Including those two illegitimate contests in the total is, undeniably, against the rules.

1. Rules are rules. Florida and Michigan primary votes should be ignored, because those states broke DNC rules and held primaries on forbidden dates. If we must pretend to the respect voters of those states, their votes should be allocated equally to the remaining candidates, thus rendering the votes meaningless. Why? Because rules transcend the will of the voters.
   
2. Rules aren't rules. Though the role of superdelegates is to vote for the candidate whom they believe will best serve the party and the country, that is not acceptable. Why? Because "the will of the voters" transcends any rules.

I agree with this post 100%.  I believe in my heart that Florida and Michigan should be seated, unless the rules when the race started say otherwise.  I also believe that the winner should be decided by the most delegates, unless of course you have the most in popular votes and superdelegates.  I have recently come to believe that we should just trash the primary delegates all together and use an electoral map to decide the nominee.  In no way am I changing the metrics, nor do I want to disenfranchise the voters of any states.  I do want it to be noted that if you can't win the big states, then the nomination should go to the person that has won those states, despite the popular vote, delegate count and contests won.  Although I believe in the democratic system, I really don't think caucus's should count for anything, except if executed under rules that can be enforced by attorneys.

I hope I didn't confuse anyone.

-Hillary

Your quote:

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."

But you quote this:

Obama, his news network NBC, and his legion of blog followers pretend they are standing for the rules. They are not.

The Rules are definitely what the Rules are.  However, the problem in this instance is that Hillary's husband was PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES.

If she wins the nomination with the Supers help even though she is trailing in the elected delegates, it will be perceived as an inside job and many of the more marginal voters who came out for Obama, including most of the Black voters, will sit out the GE.

A former devotee of Abby Hoffman is even talking about street demonstrations in Denver outside the convention hall ala 1968. As Obama said in his speech quoting Falkner: "The past is not dead.  It's not even past."  

Jerome wrote: "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")]."

So I check that out. First hit? Hillary trying to change the rules in Michigan and Florida. Has nothing to do with the coup by super-delegate that she's trying to push through.

Second hit? Same thing. Third hit? Ditto. Fourth hit? Ditto.

In fact, there's not a single hit on the first page of results that involves someone accusing of Clinton wanting to "change the rules" by trying to overturn Obama's pledged delegate lead through superdelegates.

So I guess I have three points here:

1. Did you even bother looking at those search results before posting them as "evidence" of your claim? If you did, how did you fail to notice that they don't support your claim at all?

2. Saying "I don't think that the superdelegates should vote to overturn the results of the pledged delegates and/or the popular vote" is not, in fact, advocating for a change of the rules. Saying "the consequences of that would be bad" is not, in fact, advocating for a change of the rules.

Superdelegates are free to vote however they want for whatever reasons they want. Advocating the pros and cons of various choices they might make is not, in fact, changing the rules.

3. Don't you find it horribly hypocritical to say, "The rules. They were agreed to in advance by both sides. Like them, or argue to change them for next time, but lets quit denying what they are." When just a few days ago you were advocating for rule changes in Florida and Michigan?