bill richardson

Forty-eight more hours and this story continues to grow. First a summary of where we've been for those just coming to this. If you've been following along all week, you can skip down to the next section.

On November 30th, Iowa columnist David Yepsen published a blog called "The Illinois Caucus," decrying the Obama campaigns attempt to organize Iowa students originally from out of state to participate in the caucus. This was very quickly followed by statements from the Clinton and Dodd campaigns, also attacking Obama and/or casting doubt on the legitimacy of student participation. After some pushback from bloggers and youth organizers, Clinton and Dodd issued retractions of their statements, while Yepsen kept hammering away on the issue. In general, there was dissatisfaction with those retractions, which many organizers felt did not go far enough. This was confirmed when Bill Clinton made some ambiguous statements about student participation on the stump, deploying an extra-legal standard by asking students to "vote their conscience" and only participate if they felt Iowa was their true home. Coverage in the blogs heated up with front-page posts on both Open Left and Daily Kos. At the same time, Richardson and Biden both issued statements questioning the voting rights of students with dishonest arguments equating students with out-of-state campaign staffers.

Next, reaction from the mainstream media and youth organizations started to kick in. First the Young Democrats and Rock the Vote issued statements on the matter, and then the Iowa Student PIRG weighed-in, with over 20 student leaders backing a statement affirming the rights of students to caucus. As those statements came out, the issue started to appear in the mainstream media, particularly in the New York Post, Salon.com, Newsweek, The Politico, and Time. Mostly these stories pushed back against Yepsen, though a few like that in Time and the New York Post took Yepsen's frame. As these stories began trickling out, the Clinton and Dodd campaign issued new statements clarifying their position, again in support of student caucusing.

Which brings us to the last two days.

Yesterday youth groups kicked it up a notch. The Young Democrats took the fight to Yepsen, buying a full-page ad in his paper the Des Moines Register, as well as taking out an ad-buy on Facebook targeted at Iowa students. The Young Democrats have also created a website, www.youcancaucus.com, for students confused about the issue, and have already sent out emails to their entire list on the issue.

The Young Voter PAC has taken a two-pronged approach to the issue. They've had a FaceBook group up and running for days, and are currently raising money to help students who want to return to caucus find travel and find lodging (throw them $20 if you can spare it). The group has also been working behind the scenes to get the caniddates to clarify/retract their statements. Young Voter PAC released a press release late last night reporting on those efforts. Out of all the credible candidates (or those who have made previous statements on this issue), only Joe Biden has yet to declare support for student voting rights:

Hillary Clinton: “Hillary wants every student who lives in Iowa and wants to caucus in Iowa and is eligible to caucus in Iowa to do so. We hope that they will and we hope that they will caucus for Hillary. The Iowa caucus is special because it is based on Iowa values. We hope and trust that every campaign is making sure that potential caucus goers have all the information they need, and in no way explicitly or implicitly encourages anyone to break the law by participating in two places. Not only is it okay to engage students in Iowa, but it is critical to ensure that they are active participants in the process, and we are doing everything we can to get them out to caucus.” –Howard Wolfson, Communications Director

Chris Dodd: “Clearly students who are eligible can vote under the law and of course we welcome the participation of Iowa students in the caucuses” – Hari Sevugan, Communications Director

John Edwards: “The Democratic Party has set clear rules on who can caucus and all the campaigns should follow those rules. Students who move here for college and are properly registered have always been able to caucus.” – Dan Leistikow, Iowa Communications Director

Barack Obama: “Barack Obama doesn’t believe that we should disenfranchise Iowans who meet all the requirements for caucus participation simply because they’re in college. We should be encouraging young people to participate in the political process — not looking for ways to shut them out.” – Jen Psaki, Campaign Spokeswoman

Bill Richardson: “Governor Bill Richardson looks forward to students caucusing for him on January 3rd. He believes that the caucus process is an excellent opportunity for young voters, and he encourages all students who are eligible to participate and experience the excitement of the first-in-the-nation caucus.” – Roberts Becker, Iowa State Director

We've also seen more media coverage. I had previously thought that the media coverage on this might have peaked, but today the New York Times published an excellent editorial that came out strong for college students.

Student are rightly up in arms about these statements. The law in Iowa is crystal clear: students who attend school in the state are entitled to register to vote in the state as long they are not registered anywhere else. The two parties’ rules say registered voters may participate in caucuses in the precincts where they are registered. Students have the same right to do so as any other Iowan. But statements challenging their right to vote may intimidate some students into staying home.

Hammered by student groups, the candidates have reframed their statements. But the episode has left a bad taste in the mouths of many students and of the groups that have been working feverishly to bring more of them into the electoral process. Anything that undermines student voting is bad for politics and bad for the nation.

While I agree that this really has left a bad taste in the mouths of youth organizers, I've also been incredibly heartened by this event. Over the past two weeks, we've seen a number of things. We've seen progressive bloggers and youth organizers working together on an issue - something that rarely happens. We've seen youth organizations really coalesce around an issue and support each other. The result is that what would normally have been a blip on the media radar - a few panders to Iowa nativists at the expense of students - has blown up into a national issue in the paper of record. Not only that, but we won on the issue. Big time. Every campaign except for Biden retracted their comments, and the Edwards campaign - which was totally above this fray - weighed in as well.

The other reason I'm heartened is that this issue - while we've won it now, and it's something of a shame that we had to fight it within our own party - is going to resurface. As I've noted before, this is typically a Republican tactic, and they are sure to use it come the fall. In swing states across the country (including Iowa), Republicans are not going to want students to register and vote where they attend school. They'll talk about "taxpaying citizens" and legal residency requirements, in-state vs. out-of-state tuition, and we'll have to fight this battle all over again, just as we did in 2004. This was practice for that battle, and we've already laid the groundwork to get the media and the state parties on our side in this battle. We've slapped down all those arguments (even though the Supreme Court had already done so in 1979) and preemptively reframed this as a voting rights issue. That will be useful in the general election. Really, kudos all around on this one to everyone who contributed and continues to contribute.

Update: Rock the Vote has issued a statement.

If this is your first time reading about this subject, the gist is this: a variety of Democratic campaigns, at the prodding of David Yepsen of the Des Moines Register, had tried to cast doubt on the right of students not originally from Iowa to participate in the caucus. At times, it has seemed as if both Clinton and Dodd, who were at first vocal on this matter, have stepped back from their position. At this point, no campaign has come forth with a clear statement affirming the rights of students to participate in the caucus regardless of where they were originally from. You can read previous reporting on this issue here, here, and here.

It boggles my mind, but this story gets worse by the day. Seriously how hard is it to understand that both the letter and spirit of the law encourage participation by Iowa students. This whole episode is really revealing the opportunistic, sleazy side of Democratic politics. That it should be this difficult to get Democratic candidates to say that young people can and should vote . . . anyway, here's the latest in this depressing saga:

This weekend, the Biden campaign issued a press release in which it dishonestly blurred the difference between paid staffers who moved to Iowa and students:

Following reports that Gov. Richardson is "asking governmental appointees and other state employees to volunteer to help his campaign by traveling to Iowa before the Jan. 3 leadoff presidential contest," and that Sen. Obama is encouraging out of state college students to "come back and caucus," the Biden for President campaign today called on Richardson and Obama to join the rest of the Democratic field in pledging to refrain from shipping in supporters to affect the outcome of the caucuses. [Associated Press, 12/6/07], [Associated Press, 12/5/07]

"Historically, the Iowa caucuses have been critical in leveling the playing field by producing viable candidates based on the strength of their ideas and character - because that's precisely what's needed to ensure a Democratic victory in the general election," said Biden for President Communications Director Larry Rasky. "The absurd amount of money we've seen in this race already endangers this tradition and mocks our values as Democrats. Gov. Richardson and Sen. Obama have a responsibility to place the people of Iowa before their personal ambitions and pledge not to tamper with the caucuses that will largely determine who is best equipped to tackle both the Republican nominee as well as the challenges before our country."

Having out-of-state staffers participate in the caucus is indeed a shady business in which no campaign should actively engage, but this is hardly equivalent to Obama's encouragement of Iowa students to return to Iowa early to participate in the caucus. I've said it four or five times already, but I'll say it again. These students have the legal right to caucus. They pay taxes in Iowa. They live in Iowa 9 months a year for at least 4 years. Some of them will stay in Iowa permanently. No one should actively dissuade them or try to muddy the waters and confuse them about their rights to caucus. All due respect to Senator Biden, but that, more than anything else, mocks our values as Democrats and his campaign should be ashamed.

Hidden deeps within the press release I also found this little nugget from Governor Richardson:

In addition, Reynolds said Richardson's Iowa staff has not and will not encourage out-of-state students to return to Iowa early to caucus, saying the campaign is ‘going to abide to the letter and the spirit of the law. I think the spirit of the law is what's most important,’ Reynolds said. [Des Moines Register, 12/1/07]

Again, I ask, what is the spirit of the law here? What is the spirit of democracy? I would argue that it is to encourage greater participation - particularly among the youngest members of our society who are just starting to become civically engaged. Apparently Bill Richardson thinks the spirit of the law means disenfranchising youth. Sad.

While Biden and Richardson were coming out on this issue, the Clinton campaign was backtracking. Last week, the campaign seemed to back away from their initial statements on the matter when Clinton’s Communications Director Howard Wolfson released this statement:

“The Iowa caucus is so special because it is based on Iowa values. We believe that every Iowan and every student who is eligible to caucus in Iowa should do so and we hope they do."

I was never very satisfied with this quote. After all, what exactly are "Iowa Values" other than code that folks like David Yepsen can interpret as supporting his "pure Iowa" caucus theory? Additionally, the whole issue here is that Clinton, Dodd, and now Biden and Richardson were casting doubt on the eligibility (or at least legitimacy) of students. This statement did nothing to address that concern.

Now it appears that my doubts were well founded. Chase Martyn, the Managing Editor of the Iowa Independent, posted this on this blog earlier this week:

On the eve of former President Bill Clinton’s visits to three Iowa colleges, Sen. Hillary Clinton’s campaign remains unsure of whether the roughly 40% of Iowa college students who come from out of state should participate in the January 3 caucuses.

One student at Grinnell College, where over 80% of the student body is not from Iowa, received a phone call from Clinton’s campaign Sunday. The caller invited the student, a registered Iowa voter who is from Minnesota, to attend Monday’s 5:15PM event on campus with the former president. The student, who it should be noted is not a Clinton supporter, sent along this email:

The Clinton campaign called me today and invited me to the Bill [Clinton] event. They also asked who I was planning to caucus for and if I’d ever caucused before. So I decided to call them back and asked if they even wanted me to caucus.

I said, “I’m a Grinnell College student but I’m from Minnesota. Does Hillary Clinton want my vote?”

And the woman said, “That’s a complicated issue, hold on a minute.” So she put me on hold for about two minutes, then said, “I’m going to have our youth coordinator get back to you.” And she took my name and number.

I’m still waiting for them to tell me whether I’m worthy of caucusing for Hillary Clinton.

In addition word is starting to circulate that Bill Clinton, on the stump in Iowa yesterday, was constructing straw-men to dodge the question, suggesting that students "vote their conscience" and stay away from the caucus if they didn't consider themselves "true Iowans". This is a step backward, and an unfortunate instance of the campaign telling youth organizers one thing while doing the exact opposite in practice. It reeks of Republican voter-suppression tactics.

Finally, David Yepsen has turned his nativist rant on the purity of the Iowa Caucus into a column in today's Des Moines Register, in which he continues to make not-so-veiled threats against the Obama campaign for violating the purity of the caucus:

Obama's campaign is telling Iowa college students they can caucus for him even if they aren't from Iowa. His campaign offers that advice in a brochure being distributed on college campuses in the state. A spokesman said 50,000 of the fliers are being distributed. It says: "If you are not from Iowa, you can come back for the Iowa caucus and caucus in your college neighborhood."

Given that many students in Iowa's colleges and universities are from Obama's neighboring home state of Illinois, the effort could net him lots of additional votes on caucus night. It's all quite legal, and other campaigns are signing up nonresident Iowa college students, too. But Obama's effort is unprecedented. No presidential campaign in memory has ever made such a large, open attempt to encourage students from another state to participate in Iowa's caucuses.

(But, then, they do elections a little differently in Illinois than we do in Iowa. At least you can't vote a dead person in an Iowa caucus.)

...

Credibility. It's not going to do Obama or Paul any good to have a showing in Iowa that is tainted. Obama has worked hard in Iowa. He has built an impressive organization and can win this on the legit. He doesn't need to give opposition spinners a way to discredit a victory.

So it's all perfectly legal, but it's shady because Obama is doing it on a larger scale than other campaigns? That's ridiculous. And who are these "opposition spinners?" Yepsen is the Dean of the Iowa Press Corps. He is the one who sets the narrative out of Iowa.

Quite honestly, this is craven, short-sighted stupidity on the part of all the campaigns and of Yespen. This wouldn't even be an issue if the caucus hadn't been moved up to such an early date. Students caucus ever four years, adn this has never been an issue before. Democrats and all Iowans should welcome young voters into the political process, not turn them away. And whoever the Democratic nominee is, come November 2008, I'm sure they will want students voting in Iowa, an important swing state. By making these statements now, they are undercutting their legitimacy later. As for Yepsen, he and I can at least agree on one thing: If Iowa can't get this right, then Iowa shouldn't get this sort of influence.

Via BoingBoing - a chart comparing the issue positions of all the presidential candidates - Democrats and Republicans.

Bill Richardson addressed the Young Democrats Spring Convention in Omaha last week. It's a bit long (~40 minutes), and I've only been able to watch about 25 minutes of it, but here's my impression.

He comes across as a fairly likeable guy. He pokes some fun at himself for his at times befuddled appearance during the first Democratic debate, but he still appears uncomfortable addressing a group. Or rather, uncomfortable trying to articulate his ideas in front of an audience.

As for the content of those ideas - they're mostly very good. Richardson says all the right things on Global Warming, education, and Iraq (he is the only credible candidate calling for a complete withdrawal). He repeats Kerry's mistake (I think) of trying to sell Medicare and Social Security reform to a bunch of young folks, and repeats some right wing frames in the process, but the biggest problem with his stump speech is his plan for rolling out these policy proposals. He's got this weird narrative, heavily reminiscent of the christian Creation narrative, whereby he will roll out 6 massive policy changes - any one of which could fill an entire administration - in 6 days. It's just not credible, and to my mind it actually undermines his impressive resume because it makes me wonder if seriously believes it or if he's pandering.

That sort of gets to the other problem. Richardson is by far the most qualified of all the Democrats to be President. Add on the fact that he has the potential for being the first Latino president, and this guy should be mopping the floor with Hillary and Edwards and leading the pack with Obama. But he's not. No one knows who the hell Bill Richardson is. It circles back around to the beginning of my post. He's got zero stage presence, and he doesn't have the Rock Star personality or status that Alex described yesterday in his post on Barack.

It's inspiring to see so many Millennials getting involved in the race so early, but it would be a shame if our votes were decided solely on a cult of personality and not the policies we would like a future administration to enact.

Update: And kudos to Richardson for taking the time to talk to the Young Dems.

If you haven't seen it yet, Bill Richardson is running some damn creative ads. The kind that could jar you out of your apathy and get you looking at his website. This is the type of thing candidates need to do if they want to get noticed on YouTube beyond highlighting the latest gaffe by their opponent. It's an open, creative marketplace, and stale campaign commercials won't cut it.

John Edwards is running some creative ads of his own, which remix voter-generated content. The effect is a somewhat jarring (in a bad way). I tend to think he shouldn't mix the slick ad content with the amatuer content. They should live separately. Nevertheless, it's a really interesting concept that I hope they keep refining. They only got 84 submissions for this first run, and quality of the final product will probably go up as more people submit entries.

What do y'all think? Would these get you excited about a candidate or motivated to do something?

Cross posted at MyDD. Please recommend.

One of the things I want to do through the course of this primary is track the "youthroots," or "under 30" grassroots organizing on behalf of candidates - campus groups, high school groups, or other identified youth groups (like Punx for Dean in '04). I want to not only track these groups, but look at how they organize their members, how they coordinate with each other, and how they coordinate with the "official" youth operations of the campaigns. The end goal being to compare, contrast, and establish best practices for youth outreach.

As a start to that project, I've compiled a list of all the groups I could find for each candidate based on some simple Google searches (candidate name + youth, student, teen, high school), a look at the blogrolls/links, and some quick surfing on MySpace and FaceBook. I'll follow it up with emails to the administrators of all those groups and report back the results later this week along with some more thoughts as to who's youthroots are organizing most effectively and why. If you are part of - or know of - any other youthroots that I'm missing for any candidate, please add a link in the comments.

There are some preliminary thoughts based on initial observations offered throughout the post.