What of the 300+ Mich/Florida delegates?

[Immanuel]

Threats are part of negotiations, sweet and petite! Neither you or I were privy to those negotiations to discuss the details, but nevertheless they were still negotiations. Compare that with the heavy-handed mandate of the DNC.

Based on that, which party would you want running the country?

Well, that would depend on the situation.

When it came to dealing with Saddam or terrorists, a heavy hand was necessary. When it comes to dealing with politics here in the country maybe a heavy hand is not so important.

Immie

[glockmail]

The one who stuck by their word. Though i may not agree with their decision and its heavy handedness, character and someones word means quite a bit, verses someone who is all talk and no action!

jd

They both stuck by their words. Nice attempt at avoiding the question though.

[glockmail]

Well, that would depend on the situation.

When it came to dealing with Saddam or terrorists, a heavy hand was necessary. When it comes to dealing with politics here in the country maybe a heavy hand is not so important.

Immie

There you go. The Democrats have demonstrated a heavy hand when dealing with their constituency, but complain about conservative's heavy hand with terrorists.

[JohnDoe]

They both stuck by their words. Nice attempt at avoiding the question though.

NOOOOO, they both did not stick by their word, so I did not avoid it!!!

The Rnc said they would punish Florida if they pursued an earlier primary y cutting their delegates, but they did not follow thru, from what immie has said.

the Democrats stated the same and they did follow thru.


there's your answer glock!

jd

[glockmail]

NOOOOO, they both did not stick by their word, so I did not avoid it!!!

The Rnc said they would punish Florida if they pursued an earlier primary y cutting their delegates, but they did not follow thru, from what immie has said.

the Democrats stated the same and they did follow thru.


there's your answer glock!

jd

The operative word here is "would", as I believe the correct term was "may".

[JohnDoe]

The operative word here is "would", as I believe the correct term was "may".

Well, I will give you that....

if the RNC did say "may" punish them then you would be correct, and then they were both "men of their words"....

so that means now i have to rethink, and answer your question again....and i just can't!!! I can't answer you.....cuz there is no reason to my response which would still be the Democrats..... mainly because in "real life" i would never be making a decision on who i support politically based on this one issue and scenario that took place in florida...

jd

[Immanuel]

Well, I will give you that....

if the RNC did say "may" punish them then you would be correct, and then they were both "men of their words"....

so that means now i have to rethink, and answer your question again....and i just can't!!! I can't answer you.....cuz there is no reason to my response which would still be the Democrats..... mainly because in "real life" i would never be making a decision on who i support politically based on this one issue and scenario that took place in florida...

jd

I can't swear to this but I think when all of this was going down both sides said that they were considering such penalties. The news was reporting that it was possible that Florida would lose its delegates if the parties took a hardline. I don't remember for sure if either party said they would do it. Rather I think they said, that it was an option and they were considering it.

It turned out that the DNC elected to exercise the option and I think the RNC watered it down.

Honestly, I would not be surprised if the DNC backed off on the issue and allowed the delegates, but I think that would be wrong and at least for me paint a further negative light on the DNC and Hillary Clinton.

True, I am not voting for her, but then, I'm not voting for either one of the parties. I'd be as likely to vote for Hillary as I am for McCain or Obama. All three represent to me a continuation of the current establishment. I've nothing against either one of them, except that they are part of the current establishment.

Immie

[Roadrunner]

Yes, the rules should be followed. However, Obama broke those rules by campaigning in Florida via televised ads. Thus, technically speaking, I think Hillary should have the power to nullify the agreement completely, and have the delegates counted.

Why should Hillary have the power to nullify the agreement when she had her name printed on the ballot in Michigan? If Obama broke the rules, so did she.

[theHawk]

Why should Hillary have the power to nullify the agreement when she had her name printed on the ballot in Michigan? If Obama broke the rules, so did she.

The names were already going to be on the ballots, the agreement was no campaigning there. Obama aired commericals in Florida. He broke his word. Though, I realize thats not a big offense in the Democratic Party.

[Roadrunner]

The names were already going to be on the ballots, the agreement was no campaigning there.

Neither John Edwards nor Barack Obama's names were on the Democrat Party's primary ballot in Michigan - only Hillary Clinton's. She ran against "uncommitted."