Democrats should follow own rules

I could not believe what I read in your article, "Obama says give all delegates a full vote."

I thought it was perhaps a reference to "super delegates" or other delegates who may not get full votes (who knows what rules are set up by either party). It was neither.

After reading the article, I had a hard time believing that Sen. Obama feels it is OK to violate rules and still be eligible to participate in an event. Florida and Michigan clearly violated the Democratic Party's rule about holding primaries before Feb. 5. It seems that rules (or laws) have a purpose, and I'm sure the Democratic Party had a purpose for establishing that date.

While it appears certain that the Democratic Party will select Sen. Obama to be their nominee for President of the United States, I wonder if the American people really want a president who condones breaking the rules and then allowing the violator to participate.

It seems that the American way is (or used to be) that if someone breaks a rule (or law), the offender (s) would or should pay a price. Should this violation by the Democratic Party be handled differently than when someone is stopped for speeding, arrested on charges of DUI, caught stealing, corporate fraud or murder?

Even minor traffic accidents require someone to pay. I would suggest that the delegates from Florida and Michigan be disqualified from voting at their convention as originally decided by the Democratic Party, thus setting an example by enforcing their own rules.

If party unity is what Sen. Obama really wants, why did he not want it last May when this was a large issue? Why did he wait until he had enough delegates to win the nomination? How many issues or campaign promises will he change if he is our next president?

Remember, hindsight is always 20/20.

Fred Dryden

Huntley