Ever since the end of January, when I had that lovely run-in with Scott and Rob at LGM over whether or not Hillary Clinton broke the rules when she asked that her pledged delegates seat the delegates from Florida and Michigan at the DNC this summer,* I’ve encountered a lot of people who insist, absolutely insist, that this or that action of Clinton’s, or this or that action of Florida or Michigan is in violation of The Rules and that therefore Clinton is evil and must be stopped and Florida and Michigan deserve the most severe penalty possible.
And ever since the end of January, I’ve been challenging people who make these arguments to find me one rule that Clinton has broken or wants changed in the middle of the process, or one rule that provides that last year’s decision to strip Florida and Michigan of 100% of their delegates is irrevocable.
Not one person has taken me up on this offer, even when I provide links to the rules themselves. Sometimes, they start gibbering about the four-state pledge, but it’s obvious they haven’t actually read the pledge (otherwise they might realize that a) it’s not binding on the DNC, who select the delegates; b) the only effective promise any of the candidates who signed the pledge made was to do what they were already obligated to do under DNC Rule 20.C.1.b; and c) it was all a political stunt anyway (as was Obama’s and Edwards’ removal of their names from the Michigan ballot)).
This annoys me greatly, if for no other reason than that I am a pedant. And I know very well that if you’re going to make a rules-based argument, the first thing you have to do is read the damn rules. You can argue over their interpretation, or whether one action or another violates them, but when you have a set of controlling rules, those are the first and last stop on the argument train.
Just another way that the rabid, uncritical and vocal support of Obama (by some, not by all) is ruining my fun this election season. I love arguing rules! And nobody wants to play with me. Any attempts I make to argue rules just get me dismissed as an Obama-hating Hillary-apologist. By people with Ph.D.s, no less. You’d think they might have a clue about argumentation and proof.
Anyway, this is a long and rambling way to say that I am very, very glad to see that someone is making an attempt to explain the rules in detail. And I’m not just glad because it validates every. goddamn. thing. I’ve been arguing for the past few months. I’m just happy to see someone else rules-lawyering.
__________
* She didn’t. See the rules. Yet somehow, for asking that Scott, Rob and the rest of the motley crew over there actually consult the rules they claim were being flouted, I was compared to John Yoo and informed that I do not respect legal process.
I’ve really appreciated your effort to insert rationality and higher-level analysis of the situation whenever the discussion arises, zuzu - and whenever I’m on a blog that your don’t frequent, and they bring up the ‘HILLARY IS A RULE-BREAKING EVIL FASCIST TYRANT’ crap, I go back and use the information I’ve gotten from you.
Even if that person doesn’t respond, I hope that at least other, lurking people are reading it, and maybe countering other people on other sites… it’s all about teaspoons, right? … Right? Sigh.
Even in the linked MyDD post, there are still people arguing that Hillary broked the rules, broke a pledge, yadda yadda yadda. Even when presented with FACTS, they still babble on like broken records.
Teh Stupid, it hurtz.
“broke”; not “broked”. Ugh.
While I am also a lover of arguing the rules- in this case there is also the principle.
We are Democrats. We count all the votes. Always. Disenfranchisement is a Republican tool.
The right of the people to have their votes count is more important than the right of particular states to have their votes counted first.
Zuzu, I think I could learn a lesson from the manner in which you have supported Clinton throughout this whole painful, schism-causing process. I actually abstained from my own primary because I couldn’t make up my mind between the (then) three good candidates, and I still believe we have two good choices, but neither are perfect.
You have chosen to support the less popular of the two, at least in the progressive blogosphere, and have continued to do so with poise and grace in spite of a lot of starry-eyed attacks in places I personally would never have expected.
So… yeah, just, thank you.