Hillary Clinton apparently broke the rules with her non-concession speech. Her speech left the talking heads speechless for about 3 whole minutes. Of course they then spent the next 3 hours discussing it.

Des,

Please forgive me for perhaps being a bit dense - I just need to clarify: Do you imply Senator Clinton should break the rules?

If so, I must strongly disagree with that viewpoint.

The examples you have provided (Ghandi, Parks, etc.) typically capture people or organizations breaking rules that were imposed upon them; conceptually quite different from those who have agreed to use or live by a given rule set.

Rule-breaking is, most definitely, a great American pastime, but quickly devolves into cheating when done after acceptance. It would jeopardize Senator Clinton's legacy to break the nomination's rules after having agreed to them at the outset.

Rosa Parks? You're in all seriousness comparing Hillary Clinton to Rosa Parks?

I would have chosen a different anology.

Like when my 5 year old niece throws a tantrum when she's almost reached the end of Chutes and Ladders but draws a card and has to slide down a ladder, thereby losing the game.

Des, don't hold your breath waiting to win the Nobel Prize for Logic.

So you're saying that breaking the rules is sometimes cool, and that's totally cool with you? Revelatory. Carry on...

I don't think I'd call it a koan, but a Rorschach test isn't inaccurate.

I think Des is just exploring what it means to break the rules. That he started with Rosa Parks made many assume that Des is advocating for breaking the rules. However, that Des also includes BushCo clearly suggests that he recognizes that not all good things come from breaking the rules, or more specifically, from a lopsided willingness to break the rules. Perhaps one might think here Des is suggesting that Obama might need to break a few rules, but I don't know that Des has any simple motive at all here other than to explore variations on a theme: breaking the rules.

Let's explore why Des has so much time on his/her hands that readers are subjected, on a regular basis, to these rambling rants. Another composition that substitutes long, convoluted free-association for analytical analysis, critical thinking, and epiphany moments. Not everyone's free-association is worth considering--you're not Van Morrison. Buy a journal, for God's sake!

Des,
Hillary not clever enough. Too inflexible. Too dishonest. Meets too few of your criteria. From Goldwater through Alinsky to Billcie, not enough principles to make apt comparison to your ideal rule-breaker. Rosa was a dream. Hillary Shillary Bill is a nightmare.

Now, about this reconciliation season. Obama just has to contest the false pictures of him. He must call together a group of fair witnesses and let them grill him to the nth degree.

Des, are you conducting a psych experiment or something? This is your second post in as many days that explicitly doesn't mention anything about the election but could be easily interpreted as election-related.

Cider House Rules - the rules that are published and the rules that the guy with the knife says the rules are.

"America breaks the world's rules. While the rest of the world seeks job security, we go for job churn. We're more successful so we take less vacation. Other countries try to grow jobs - we send them elsewhere and then make more."

Who is this we you refer to?

I'm as much a fan of the koan as anyone, but many koans can be refuted/rationalized by recognizing that the subject changes in mid-stream.

As for the American "superiority" you seem to grasp at here let me remind you the British tried to give Americans the benefit of the hard won bitter experience they'd learned in 3 years before we got to France in 1917. Don't churn up No Man's land and the front line of German trenches with too much artillery before an attack. The Germans just hide in their bunkers until your shelling lifts and then slaughter your soldiers as they try and slog through the muck you've just created. We took ghastly casualties just like everybody else did earlier in the war before we started listening.

Any super delegate that declares for Clinton from this day forward in not only a fool but doing the Republican party's work for them. We have a nominee. Either support him or leave the party.

a VP who Republicans could live with could also give the Republicans the White House for 12 years

Just as true if Hillary had won the nomination. Perhaps even more true, because McCain would have less worry about shoring up the wingnut vote, and could pick Veep who would help with him with weaknesses in other areas.

But look at the names that have been floated. Is your concern purely theoretical, or are there names being floated that make the concern more tangible?

Romney? Not a bad choice in some ways, but he's such an obvious phony that it doesn't strike me as a very strong ticket. Huckabee? Maybe if he needs to shore up the wingnut vote, but again, not a terribly frightening ticket. Billy likes Condi for McCain's veep (if he's serious about that), but the last thing he needs is someone who ties him even more closely to Bush and at the same time alienates the racist/sexist demographic within the GOP.

Nuanced, thoughtful points, Desi. Thanks.

(I haven't had time to read all of the comments, so I hope I'm not repeating something that's already been said. If so, I apologize.)

Rules--as a function of structure--can provide order, or oppression. Fortunately, when the rules are unjust, we have people who are willing to challenge them, calling attention to the errors of thought or morality that underlie those rules. Then again, as you point out with some of your examples, distorted application or interpretation of rules can produce unjust results.

So the value of rules can't be evaluated without keeping in mind (and reminding ourselves constantly) the intended purpose (and whether it's just) and the effectiveness of the results (how well the rules serve the intended purpose).

Desidero, a good tangent on the issue. It suffers from a fatal flaw, however: Parks fought against rules that had been dictated to her, imposed upon her without representation.

My philosophy is, broadly, that any just or unjust rule may be broken if one was not allowed to participate in crafting the rule. Strife against tyranny is justifiable. Conversely, any rule that one wittingly agreed to without coercion may only be contested by "peaceful" means.

Social theory and morality in societies are very interesting topics, though.

America breaks the world's rules. While the rest of the world seeks job security, we go for job churn. We're more successful so we take less vacation. Other countries try to grow jobs - we send them elsewhere and then make more. We take predictions of food shortages and shatter them (here's an article from 1914 shattering similar food myths to those we contend with today). We take management principles and turn them on their head. We have people's revolution enshrined as one of the founding principles of the country. And of course in terms of politics, rights, changes to the law, the to-and-fro between people power and corporations, much of it lies in changing and breaking the rules, not just blindly following them. If someone's going to represent America, he/she has to understand the many sides - the fairness, the pushiness, the self-excusing, the openness, the fighting, the clever, the entitled, the myth building.

I suggest everyone note this paragraph and see how clever it looks in 5 years. America is at the end of coasting on it's post WWII prosperity coupled with being the world-dominant player of cheap energy. Some of these 'breaking the rules' will come back to bite us.

The manufacturing jobs we have shipped overseas will prevent the nation from rising again... just for starters. Most countries don't copy our management style -- for a reason. We are already seeing food shortages in rice and cooking oil.

The jingoistic nation of this paragraph is surprising on TPM -- and even more surprising is the fact that people didn't see it for what it is.

Desidero, I agree with almost everything you have said here. It's interesting that I see the post as an argument for Obama.

Obama may not have broken the written rules, but he broke every unwritten rule in the book. (can an unwritten rule be "in the book?" Where can I get a copy of this book?) He leapt to the front of the line, not waiting his turn, despite the fact that he is a freshman senator. He took the standard rules of a political campaign and turned them on their head. He competed in places that Democrats had not previously. He eschewed the Rovian rhetoric of division which had defined politics for the last decade.

And Clinton? She played by the rules. She waited her turn. She played politics according to the standard rules. It was only at the end, when it was apparent that by living by the rules she would die by the rules, that she was interesting in breaking the rules.

The fact that it took a Supreme Court decision, and not a Revolution, begin to address segregation to me is a pretty goods sign that Rosa Parks and other Civil Rights advocates were recognizing a higher (i.e. constitutional) rule, and they realized that their best recourse was to point out the conflict in those rules. She didn't win desegregation is bus transport by simply repeatedly sitting in the front of the bus until the bus company gave up; she sat in front of the bus so she could get arrested, then argue her position in court.

Parks, Ghandi and others broke rules strategically not for their own selfish gain but to change the system and make it more equitable for everyone. Just how does Hillary Clinton holding on to a failed candidacy compare to that? Just what is that Grand Principle that she's fighting for?

Interesting, Desidero. This should indeed be called "Riddle of Hillary Clinton." It's a nice book end to Billy Glad's "Myth of Barack Obama."

Aum

No, hitting a wall is different than a decline. Expect to see the beginnings of a radical change in lifestyles in the US in the next 6-12 months as gas goes to $5 gal or more.

That would imply a change in a mere 12-18 months of cheap energy, compared to a slow decade-long scale.

You are pretty dismissive of all of this -- and the evidence today (end of manufacturing of SUVs, airlines going out of business, jumps in the price of wheat, etc.) is huge. Ignore the warning signs at your own risk.

Yes, but all countries depend implicitly on how the U.S. moves. If it costs more to drive around, that means fewer dolls made in China for little Debby. It means a shrinking market for everything else across the globe.

Very jingoistic. Here's a bigger picture: China doesn't need our markets as soon as they elevate their general lifestyle to absorb themselves the products they make. The Chinese has been buying up the US debt -- yet hoarding their own currency. They are getting closer and closer to holding our economy hostage, while at the same time increasing the value of their own.

The US has provided a nice market place for the Chinese to use to build up their manufacturing capacity... but they are about to be a bigger consumer nation than ourselves. Not on a per capita basis (which itself can grow) but in sheer raw numbers.

Hubris will kill the US.

I suggest you look at BAD MONEY by Kevin Phillips.