Clintonian ethics, a case study: When you're losing, change the rules

By Michael J.W. Stickings

How utterly pathetic is the Clinton campaign? How utterly noxious has it become? And what utter loserdom. Having not won a contest since Super Tuesday, and after yet another drubbing yesterday in Wisconsin and Hawaii, Clinton is now seeking not to win the race by playing by the rules -- that is, by actually beating Obama -- but to win it by changing the rules:

This morning brings the news that the campaign of Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-NY, has launched a new
website where they are announcing how they are officially preparing to make the case that the rules of the Democratic nomination process should be changed.

Among many "facts" they declare are some accurate ones, such as the idea that superdelegates, which in true nomenclatural dexterity they now term "automatic delegates" "are expected to exercise their best judgment in the interests of the nation and the Democratic Party."

But then comes this juicy non-fact:

"FACT: Florida and Michigan should count, both in the interest of fundamental fairness and honoring the spirit of the Democrats' 50-state strategy."

That's not a fact, that's an opinion.

And it's clear evidence (not that there was any mystery about it) that the Clinton campaign is trying to change the rules in the middle of the game.

Come to think of it, the Clinton campaign has a point. Why play by the rules when you can change the rules at any time? This is where Belichick and the Patriots went wrong. Sure, they were 18-0, but they went ahead and played the Super Bowl by the rules. And so they let Eli Manning drive the Giants down the field for the winning TD near the end of the game and then failed to score on a last-minute drive that went nowhere. What if the Patriots had simply changed the rules? What if, on that play where Manning scrambled and found David Tyree for one of the greatest catches ever, the Patriots had changed the rules so that touching the QB was a sack? Or what if, at the end of the game, they had simply changed the rules of mathematics so that 14 was worth more than 17?

Okay, that's crazy, I know. The rules are the rules, whether in football or mathematics.

But this is the sort of crazy coming from an increasingly desperate Clinton campaign these days. Is it any wonder that so many of us are coming more and more to despise the Clinton campaign? I am an Obama supporter, yes, but I didn't want that support to mean anything other than situational opposition to Clinton. Which is to say, I didn't support Obama because I was against Clinton in any deeply negative way but rather because I liked him more and thought he would make the better president.

This has changed. I am now genuinely opposed to Clinton and her campaign, over which she must be held responsible. It is a campaign that is losing, that is desperate, that is looking for any way to get back on top, no matter what, that is hurling attacks at Obama from all sides, that is, as we can now see, trying to change the rules.

As Steve Benen points out, Clinton still has options and hasn't yet lost the race. This is true. But it also seems that the Clinton campaign has given up trying to win the race legitimately. Indeed, as Jason Zengerle remarks, it might simply be "incapable" of doing that. It's all about the bullshit now, as Matthew Yglesias notes.

And so the attacks will continue, as will the excuses, as will these efforts to change the rules.

In Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan, Adm. Kirk admits to Lt. Saavik that, when younger, he beat the unwinnable Kobayashi Moru test by reprogamming the simulator -- that is, by changing the rules, by cheating. Hillary Clinton is no James T. Kirk, of course, and Kirk had good reason not to believe in "the no-win scenario," but Clinton's last-ditch efforts to change the rules reflects a similar outlook, a similar arrogance, however ignoble.

It is time for Democrats to say NO to Hillary Clinton.