Changing the rules mid-game

[Rosemary2205]

I'm torn. My natural state of being is to play by the rules. I wait patiently in line for my turn without too much bitching at the DMV - I generally obey traffic laws - I don't push and shove in crowds - I try very hard not to inconvenience the people around me - I say "yes ma'am", "thank you" and "please" 100's of times a day.

In my everyday life I consider people who won't play by the rules as rude, or even worse, inferior beings. Those people who ping pong around the lanes on the freeway making everyone behind them have to slow down - those oblivious people so busy yakking on the cell they walk right into my wheelchair - people who push and shove in a crowd - people who cheat lie and steal. Etc Etc ad nauseum.

So in my natural state, Hillary wanting to change the rules at her whim affects me the same way. It is selfish, inconsiderate and rude.

But I ask you. Where did considerate, cooperative and kind get us in Washington? Although I voted Obama, and he's still got my support, make no mistake - I have to say - selfish, inconsiderate and rude may be just what we need in Washington DC.

[femmedem]

1. Bush is selfish, inconsiderate and rude.

I'll take considerate, cooperative and kind any day. :)

[Rosemary2205]

5. Yes he is, and has gotten EVERYTHING he asked for.

[femmedem]

9. Yes and no.

I do see your point. But I don't think Bush wanted an approval rating under 20%. I don't think he wanted to be in an unwinnable, unpopular war. I don't think he wanted the economy to tank on his watch.

So I'll say in the short run, he got what he wanted. But because of his uglier personal characteristics, scientists, military experts, advisors of all kind were afraid to contradict him.

I am sure that Obama, on the other hand, will invite and listen to dissenting opinions. And therefore his decisions will be informed by facts, not ideology.

[Rosemary2205]

13. I don't doubt the Clintons would hear out everyone too.

they certainly did last time. No?

From what I've seen of the Clintons they are capable of either cooperation or pushing and shoving depending on which tactic will best serve the purpose on any given occasion. IMHO this bears no comparison whatsoever to Bushco - who is genetically incapable of giving a shit about anyone but himself.

[EmperorHasNoClothes]

2. I'd rather lose with my principles, than win without them

I think Obama feels the same way. We have had decades of ever-growing vitriol in Washington, and where has it gotten us? It's time for a change in tone. As long as Obama sticks to his positive message, he will maintain the moral high ground.

[BumRushDaShow]

3. It's time for

a change. The politics of hate, fear-mongering, name-calling, innuendos, divisiveness, and imperialism must go the way of the horse and buggy. As an advanced culture, this country cannot reach the next phase of intellectual evolution unless we leave this crap behind.

[lewis_in_fw]

4. Rules are Rules are Rules. Doesn't matter if the rule is bad...

The rule should be followed.

I think this is the same argument that white southern racists in 1950s/1960s used to disenfranchise voters with literacy tests. Is it not?

[pampango]

10. Good point. But would you carry it as far as to say that we should have no rules

in the 2012 Democratic nomination process. Or perhaps that we should have rules, but make following them an option rather than a requirement. That would leave open the possibility of changing the rules midstream for principled reasons (of course, benefit to one candidate or another might be difficult to rule out).

[lewis_in_fw]

14. No I would not. It all depends on the rule...

If we want to overturn the power of Iowa & New Hampshire, states will have to be disobedient....

Michigan and Florida are raising this issue for all of us.

Why have Dean & Obama both said prior to the primary & prior to the importance of these contests, that the delegates would be seated and then retract themselves?

Peace

[mmonk]

6. This is a democratic primary.

Also, if Obama can gather people willing to switch parties, that is a strength.

[Spider Jerusalem]

7. Clinton's blatant disregard of the rules of her own party...

is a troubling sign of a dangerous lust for power that is exactly what we DON'T need in Washington. We've had eight years of a president who ran for the office for no other reason than that he thought he SHOULD be president; someone who selected his advisers on the basis of loyalty rather than competence, and who engaged in a vicious and destructive campaign against his only real opponent in the primary in order to obtain his objective. I'm sorry, but count me out; we don't need another president who's cut from the same cloth.

[Ravy]

8. To be fair, the campaign was in full swing when the Rules Committee

said that they would not seat any delegates from FL or MI.

That penalty was a bit harsh. The same thing happened on the Republican side, and each was penalized half of their delegates, but narry a peep out of that.

The question is whether total disenfranchisement is proper, and *that* was done in the middle of the game. Hillary did not pledge to agree with that decision nor to support it.

[Spider Jerusalem]

11. No, they were told their delegates wouldn't be seated LAST FALL.

Well before the start of the campaign. And Hillary from her comments was well aware of it; when asked why she left her name on the ballot in Michigan, her response was 'the results don't matter, anyway'.

[saltpoint]

12. Correct.

[Ravy]

17. I see. You think the campaigns stared this January. Where were you all last year????

This has been going on for a year or more.

[saltpoint]

18. Hi, Ravy. For all of last year, I was stoned out of my gourd in an opium

den in a Bangkok back alley.

Not a lot of media input there, but the people were darned nice.

[Ravy]

16. Yes, a couple of months before the first election.

The campaign was started over a year ago. We had debates last summer.

Get a grip on reality.

[dansolo]

19. But Harold Ickes did

I thought that he was speaking for her campaign.

[npincus]

15. selfish is as selfish does.

we don't need more of that.