Democratic Debate Starting - Update on Student Caucusing in the Media

Update: The final question to the candidates addressed the role of Iowa in the nominating process. Everyone genuflected to the people of Iowa and the importance of Iowa's place as the first in the nation caucus. No one took the question as an opportunity to address the student issue. Understandable from a political standpoint - you don't want to "offend" any nativists in the final major media event before the caucus. But still disappointing that no one stood up for students.
-----------------------------------------

At 2pm today, the Democrats will hold their final pre-caucus debate. Hosted by The Des Moines Register, the paper of columnist David Yepsen (he who hates-on students), it should be interesting for a couple of reasons. First, it could be the most important debate of 2007. Second, it will be interesting to see if the moderator brings up the issue of students caucusing. In the meantime, here's the latest news on the Iowa student voting rights issue:

• Time Magazine has an interesting piece about Obama's ground game in Iowa. The piece is about 80% great, focusing heavily on Obama's peer-to-peer operation. Unfortunately, it also broke Rules # 2 and #3 of reporting on the youth vote:

  While the results have yet to be proven, most observers agree Obama has made the biggest bet on reaching out to different groups of voters. "I do think he's got a more legitimate claim to bringing in new people: younger voters, college voters, bringing in a new audiences," said Iowa State Senate majority leader Michael Gronstal, a Democrat who isn't endorsing a candidate this cycle. "If he brings in enough, that's the advantage; if not, then Senator Clinton's old line of establishment Democrats becomes telling." In past election years, many candidates that bet the farm on getting new faces to sacrifice an hour and a half of their time to argue politics with their neighbors have more often seen their campaign hopes stay home. While Jimmy Carter and Gary Hart both brought in significant numbers of new faces, many more candidates, such as Howard Dean, have failed in spectacular fashion.

  The former Vermont governor bet that more college and high school students, inspired by his insurgent candidacy, would turn out to caucus for him. Instead, he ended up coming in third in 2004 behind Kerry and former North Carolina Senator John Edwards. And while Obama could certainly suffer as surprising a defeat as Dean, his supporters believe his operation is very different.

  Most disapointing, Time Magazine repeats the allegation that student caucusing is somehow against the spirit of the caucus:

  Though all of Harrington's classmates are Iowans, Obama's campaign has gotten into some trouble in their zeal to rally the college vote: campaign workers passed out some 50,000 fliers encouraging students from out of state to return to campus early to participate in the caucuses. While strictly legal — since they are technically residents of Iowa — it goes against the spirit of the caucuses, and Obama has been roundly criticized in Iowa papers for the move.

  What exactly is this spirit of which some many people speak with such reverence? I would think that the spirit of a caucus - celebrated for its unique, and highly participatory role in an otherwise representative democracy - is to actually encourage participation. It's amazing and shocking that so many in our media seem to think that less participation is more in keeping with this so-called spirit of the caucus.

• In the Politico, Ben Adler has an excellent summary of the events of the last 14 days. Go here to get the skinny on the "he-said, she-said."
• The New York Post is running their second piece on this issue. In the first piece, published yesterday, they used the issue to attack Barack for fixing the caucus, and tried to drive a wedge between the Democratic candidates on the issue. Today, they are using more recent statements by Clinton's campaign in support of students voting rights to label Senator Clinton a hypocrite. Damned if you do, damned if you don't. Such is the reporting of the New York Post.