Changing The Rules Midstream

This is kind of the last straw:

The Texas Democratic Party warned Thursday that election night caucuses scheduled for next Tuesday could be delayed or disrupted after aides to Hillary Clinton threatened to sue over the party's complicated delegate selection process [...]

Democratic sources said both campaigns have made it clear that they might consider legal options over the complicated delegate selection process, which includes both a popular vote and evening caucuses. But the sources made it clear that the Clinton campaign in particular had warned of an impending lawsuit.

"Both campaigns have made it clear that they would go there if they had to, but I think the imminent threat is coming from one campaign,'' said one top Democratic official, referring to the Clinton campaign. The officials spoke on condition of anonymity.

Another Democratic official who was privvy to the discussions confirmed that Clinton representatives made veiled threats in a telephone call this week.

"Officials from Sen. Clinton's campaign at several times throughout the call raised the specter of 'challenging the process,' the official said. "The call consisted of representatives from both campaigns and the Democratic Party.''

First, Clinton surrogates sued to close all at-large caucuses in Nevada. They argued to seat Michigan and Florida delegates after all candidates boycotted the state. They have disparaged the caucus process itself. And now threatening to sue over the Texas process.

Whether or not these are legitimate claims and concerns is not germane. For the record, the way Texas chooses their delegates is screwy as hell. But in every single one of these cases, the processes were well-known for months and months to all parties before the voting. There was a time to raise objections and that was early last year. A serious candidate would have not only known about these things, they would have worked to change them to their advantage if they had a problem. I think the Nevada Democratic Party or the Texas Democratic Party would have given a lot of weight to what the putative front-runner had to say. Some might not have liked it, but they could have made this work for them, or made it work better for them. Or they could have taken the stance of the Obama campaign and WORKED WITHIN THE SYSTEM. Last March or April, the Clinton campaign could have easily made this one staffer's goal.

The result is that the Clinton campaign looks like they want to change the rules in the middle of the game, because they do. It does nothing for their likability, and in the end it won't matter. The Nevada courts threw out the case, the caucuses continue, Texas is not going to be bullied, and Michigan and Florida are only going to be seated if they aren't decisive (for the record I think they won't be). The Clinton campaign just looks small and petty.

(And I just saw the lowest kind of fearmongering ad, one that could easily be used by John McCain in November, being used by Clinton, about "what's going to happen if the phone rings at 3am, will your children be safe?" Thanks for that one, team.)

UPDATE: The "Texas two-step" has been in place since 1968. FWIW, both campaigns are denying any intention to sue.