Isn't it rather arrogant for a candidate to 'give' his votes to another candidate in second choice

[debbierlus]

Round....

Kucinich & Richardson are telling people who vote for them in the first round to caucus for Obama in the second, if they don't reach 15%. Does this strike anyone else as ridiculous? People are free to choose whoever they think is best for their second choice, it isn't theirs to direct or decide for ANYBODY. Just because someone supports a certain candidate for first choice doesn't give them the right to have ANY say, in whom the individual chooses for their second vote.

[Yael]

1. I think it is the epitomy of arrogance

The assumption is hero worship as opposed to agreement on policy/issues.

[dorkulon]

2. It's called an endorsement. You're free to ignore it. Sheesh. /nt

[salin]

3. There is a lot of misinformation flying around on this point. Both

Richardson and Obama folks have said their is no deal with Richardson. I think a whisper stated earlier about Biden - tjhat was also disclaimed.

[Selatius]

4. They can't give it. They can only advise. That's a pretty big difference.

To give requires that they control the individual vote. Not true. He is simply saying that if there aren't enough votes such that he reaches the 15 percent needed for viability in the caucus, that they should think about having Obama as their alternate. He is not forcing them; the voter still has the free will to do whatever he or she wants with that vote.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

5. Only when they endorse somebody I don't like.

It's great when they endorse my candidate.

Also, I don't like sour grapes. They're too sour.

[John Q. Citizen]

6. Doesn't strike me as strange at all. In fact, it would strike me as strange if

candidates didn't ask their supporters to vote strategically.

Of course, people will do what they will do, but asking your supporters to help you with the second round vote makes sense.

You may recall that both Edwards and Kucinich did that last time in 04.

[zorahopkins]

7. People CAN Think For Themselves

You are absolutely correct about this.

Honestly, it never ceases to amaze me that some politicians think that the American people cannot make a decision for themeselves.

[hedgehog]

8. It's not arrogant at all. If you clearly aren't going to win, toss your votes to the person

most likely to win/that you agree with the most in the hope of getting points to advance your agenda later. Expect to see a lot of this at the convention next summer.

[Orangepeel]

9. For the record, the Richardson campaign says they aren't

I do think that it is arrogant, but then again, I don't think that anyone can run for president if they don't have an ego the size of a house. :shrug:

But they can't make anyone switch. All they do it suggest.

[lvx35]

10. Yeah, I don't like it at all.

It makes the person seem like an agent with ulterior motives. What I support is directness and honesty. A candidate should stand and represent, and if they don't get chosen, they don't get chosen. It really damaged my ideas about Kucinich, because I thought he was a purist, an idealist who made stands even if they weren't politically wise. But now I see that's not true, and he's just as much a player as anybody else.

[90-percent]

11. a point

I sent $250 to DK about a month ago. My second choice would have been John Edwards. Obama seems too corporate for me.

Should I call Dennis and ask him to send any of my unspent money to Edwards?

Oh well.

-90% Jimmy

[Little Star]

12. exactly.

[razors edge]

13. Depends,

did they "give" them to your candidate or someone else's?