chris dodd

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.

Update: So I went ahead and did this. Not too bad, I don't think (though I hate watching myself on video). As far as I can tell, there's only 6 other questions submitted thus far - including some from 9/11 truthers and flag burners. So there's actually a decent chance that my question will get asked and we'll be able to get Dodd himself on record about this issue:

---------------------------

I think you know what to do. Ask Chris Dodd what his position is on the rights of students attending university in Iowa but born outside of the state to participate in the January Caucus.

If I can figure out how the camera on my laptop works I'll be submitting a question later today.

Update: Matt Browner-Hamlin from the Dodd campaign emailed me to say that the issue here is the timing of the Daily Iowan story. Dodd's comments reported in the story were made at 1pm yesterday. The campaign issued it's statement at 7pm that night. This is good in that it means the Dodd campaign isn't trying to double-talk the youth vote community on this issue like I feared. However, the statement is still too easy to parse one way or another or me. "Iowa students" could be interpreted a number of ways. I'm still urging that all campaigns and the party come forth with an unequivocal statement that leaves no room for interpretation.
------------------------------------------------

I thought this story was starting to come to a successful resolution, but apparently people aren't getting it.

Last night, the Dodd campaign released a statement that seemed to affirm the rights of students to participate in the Iowa Caucus. From the Chris Dodd for President blog:

Chris Dodd for President Communications Director Hari Sevugan today released the following statement:

"We welcome the participation of Iowa students in the process."

Jane Fleming Kleeb and Mike Connery have been writing about this issue at Young Voter PAC Blog and Future Majority, respectively. Daily Kos diarist psericks has also written extensively about the student vote in Iowa.

If you're a student, a Millenial voter (like me), or a voter of any other age looking to support Chris Dodd's candidacy, join the Dodd Squad and volunteer for the campaign. We can use your help!

Then this morning, the Daily Iowan ran a story in which Senator Dodd was quoted (just yesterday at a forum at Mount Mercy College no less) as saying that only students "from Iowa" should participate, and Dodd explicitly stated what he meant by that:

Comparing out-of-state students to his staff members, who have lived in Iowa for more than a year, he said the caucuses should be reserved for Iowans, which doesn't include students paying out-of-state tuition.

"If you're from Hartford, Conn., and you're going to school at the University of Iowa, and you're paying out of state tuition, you're [unfairly] casting yourself as an Iowan," he said.

There should be no confusion on this issue. In both the letter of the law and spirit of our democracy, those students can and should be participating in the caucus. And candidates should not be splitting hairs or delivering one message to the youth vote community while conveying a totally different message at Iowa forums. Haven't we all learned that you can't get away with that kind of campaigning anymore?

As blogger Marcy Wheeler noted earlier this week in response to Hillary's initial statements, this is a voting rights issue that's bigger than any one campaign or even any one state:

It pisses me off not because she's dissing my vote (the MI primary/caucus monstrosity, that big contest for delegates that have been taken away, has been pretty much called for Hillary already). It pisses me off because I've run the precinct organization for a county with two large universities (U Michigan and EMU). And I'm well aware of the way that HAVA laws in many states have affected college students' ability to vote.

You see, in MI, you have to jump through flaming hoops to be able to vote absentee in your first election. So what happened in 2004 is that a bunch of MI college students who had first become eligible to vote just before or just after they left home to go to college at UM or EMU were faced with those flaming hoops as they contemplated voting for a Democratic President (remember how well Kerry did with the youth vote??). The best alternative to those flaming hoops we had to offer was massive voter registration drives on campus--basically re-registering the students where they lived so they could vote in person.

Even in 2006, I can remember a father and daughter who came to the polling station I was watching--you could tell she was absolutely thrilled to be able to vote. But she and dad had made two trips back and forth to Detroit, all evening long, to figure out where she could legally vote. Much as she was thrilled to be voting, she was damn near tears at facing the flaming hoops. And for students from further away, like Traverse City, driving back and forth just to be able to vote is not an option.

The American Prospect has an even better run-down on the ways in which residency requirements have been used by Republicans to disenfranchise students in university towns. That's the thing, too. Typically this is a Republican tactic meant to drive down student turnout and maintain their hold on local elected leadership positions. Seeing the Democrats use it against each other in a primary process is sickening. We should be reducing barriers to participation and encouraging all young people to take part in the political process. This whole issue is making me sad to be a Democrat.

All of this makes it doubly important to have the DNC and the Iowa Democratic Party - and all of the Democratic Presidential Campaigns - to come clean on this issue and release unequivocal statements affirming the rights of all Iowa students - regardless of where they lived when they went to high school - to participate in the Iowa Caucuses. This has gone on long enough and anything less just doesn't pass the smell test.

Last weekend, Hillary Clinton and Chris Dodd both issued statements casting doubt on the legitimacy of students "from out of state" caucusing on January 3rd in their university precincts. As I noted at the time, both Clinton and Dodd were deploying the language and tactics of those who would disenfranchise students. An excellent article in the American Prospect today lays out the history of such tactics.

In response to an outcry from Democratic youth orgs, a number of young bloggers, and some good behind-the-scenes work from youth advocates, the Clinton campaign issued something of a retraction to their comments yesterday evening:

Hillary Clinton’s Communications Director Howard Wolfson: “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."

This is a good step, but we're still not there yet. This statement, which came to me via email from Emily Hawkins, the Clinton Youth Director, still feels squishy on the issue. It's a positive step, but I would have preferred to see somethign much more definitive like: "Hillary Clinton affirms that all students who are enrolled in an Iowa college or university have a right to participate in the caucus, and we encourage them to take advantage of this opportunity to participate in an important and unique part of the American political process." More troubling is that this statement appears nowhere on the Hillary Clinton website or on HillBlazers - the youth component of Hillary's campaign.

Even were that to happen, though, that still isn't the end of this. Dodd has yet to issue a retraction of his comments, and just today, David Yepsen continued to delegitimize the participation of students in the Iowa Caucus (emphasis mine):

At first glance, Clinton may have more luck with her strategy than Obama has with his. Only 5 percent of the likely Democratic caucus-goers are under age 25, while 50 percent are over age 55. Also, the Jan. 3 caucus date comes when many students are on break and may be out of town, which is why Obama is making an effort to get students who are not from Iowa to vote here.

That's an outrageous statement from Yepsen. He's continuing to insinuate that these students do not have the right to participate in the caucus, even though the Secretary of State's office has specifically stated that their participation is 100% legitimate. As I've noted in the past, Yepsen is a serial offender here, deriding the youth vote for low rates of participation with on column even as the next discourages their participation.

This is wrong in so many ways. As many have noted, not only are the students legally allowed to participate, they are real residents of Iowa in all senses of the word. They live there 9 months a year for at least four or five years. They pay taxes in the forms of sales tax and state/local taxes from their jobs (yes, many students actually work). They are for more invested in what happens locally in Iowa than they are at their parents home.

Whoever you support - Clinton, Obama, Edwards, Dodd - all Democrats should agree that the Democratic Party is not in the business of discouraging or disenfrachsing voters. That's a Republican tactic. All of the campaigns should issue statements - prominently displayed in their online press room - in support of the rights of students to participate in the caucus. As should Howard Dean (time to put some muscle behind all the nice speeches about the importance of young voters) and the chairman of the Iowa Democratic Party. There should be no doubt left in anyone's mind - be it a nervous student getting ready for their first caucus or David Yepsen himself - that these students have a right to caucus, and the entire Democratic Party encourages that they exercise that right.

I just read a very disturbing piece in the Politico. It appears that both the Clinton and the Dodd campaigns are criticizing the Obama campaign for rallying students to return early to Iowa to participate in the January 3rd Caucus. In effect, what they are doing is advocating for the disenfrachisement of young voters.

David Yepsen, the Dean of the Iowa press corps, stirred up this hornets nest in a blog post, The Illinois Caucus, in which he all but accused the Obama campaign of trying to rig the caucus and privileged the parochialism of "native Iowans" over the rights of young voters - a group often maligned (by Yepsen himself) for their lack of participation:

While it’s legal for college students to register to vote in Iowa to do that, this raises the question of whether it’s fair, or politically smart. No presidential campaign in memory has ever made such a large, open attempt to encourage students from out of state, many of whom pay out-of-state tuition, to participate in the caucuses. No other campaign appears to be doing it in this campaign cycle.

Tommy Vietor, a spokesman for Obama’s campaign, said “we have no intention of doing something here that is in any way illegal or that will raise questions about the credibility of the caucuses.” He said election laws allow students to register and vote where they go to college and that means they can caucus in those precincts as well.

That’s fine but these are the Iowa caucuses. Asking people who are “not from Iowa” to participate in them changes the nature of the event.

Yepsen, who's reporting on Iowa is incredibly influential, even goes so far as to threaten the Obama campaign, promising that any Obama win will be marred by a negative media narrative:

And trying to pack the caucuses with people from Illinois might taint Obama’s showing. Polls show Obama is in a close race with Hillary Clinton and John Edwards. Recent surveys show him with a lead of a few points. If he wins the Iowa caucuses with Illinois votes, his victory would be discounted by his opponents and media people.

Yepsen's comments are particularly outrageous in that just yesterday he wrote a story in which he criticized young voters for failing to turn up at the caucus:

Obama's gained 6 points in the last month and has opened up a statistically insignificant lead over Hillary Clinton and John Edwards. That lead looks even weaker when you consider a chunk of Obama's support comes from younger adults, who are notoriously poor caucusgoers. (Only 5 percent of likely Democratic caucusgoers are under 25. In 2004, only 17 percent were under 29.)

Aside from the fact that Yepsen violated rule # 2 in reporting on the youth vote, apparently he sees no contradiction in chastising young people for trying to participate with one hand while demeaning their participation rates with the other.

This isn't new though. The media has long been terrible when it comes to accurately reporting on young voters. The real disappointment comes from the Dodd and Clinton campaigns, both of which hopped on the Yepsen bandwagon in criticizing Obama's attempt to encourage Iowa students to attend the caucus:

A Hillary Rodham Clinton campaign official said: “We are not courting out-of-staters. The Iowa caucus ought to be for Iowans.”

Chris Dodd for President Iowa State Director Julie Andreeff Jensen said in a statement on Saturday:

“I was deeply disappointed to read today about the Obama campaign's attempt to recruit thousands of out-of-state residents to come to Iowa for the caucuses. ... ‘New Politics’ shouldn't be about scheming to evade either the spirit or the letter of the rules that guide the process. That may be the way politics is played in Chicago, but not in Iowa."

As far as I'm concerned, this is advocating voter disenfranchisement. These students live in Iowa for at least 9 months a year for 4, 5, 6 years. For all intents and purposes, Iowa is their home, and elections in Iowa affect their lives far more than an election in their "home" state. Pundits like Yepsen celebrate Iowa for it's "retail" politics, and embodying the best characteristics of our democracy. If thousands of young voters want to experience that first hand and participate, it's outrageous for Clinton, Dodd, Yepsen or anyone, to discourage them from exercising their legal right.

No one would ask resident Iowans to take a pledge that they intend to live in the state for more than 4 years before participating in the caucus, and students should not be subject to such a requirement either. Rather than spending their time whining that the Obama campaign is out-organizing them among college students, Dodd and Clinton should get to work energizing their own student base. Young voters already face many barriers to participation that in part account for their lower turnout rates. Rather then erecting more barriers to participation, campaigns and the media should be working to reduce those barriers. Shame on them for doing otherwise.

As of this writing, Stephen Colbert has become the first presidential candidate to actually pass the 1 million strong mark, with 1,005,608 members in his Facebook group.

In other news, Chris Dodd, who has been a strong progressive voice on the campaign trail lately, is coming out strong against overpayment to corporate lenders by the government on student loans. Dodd wants the total costs of those over-payments recouped and funneled back into the Pell Grant program, which would raise the maximum grant by another $100 per semester.

Also worth checking out this morning - the Missoula Independent has an in-depth profile of Matt Singer, CEO of Forward Montana.

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

There were a lot of great posts over the past few days that I missed while at Kos. Here's what's been going on in the past five days in our corner of the progressive movement:

• Over at MyDD, Jerome took my job and filed the weekend youth vote report, noting a new Washington Post poll of Iowa Caucus-goers that sampled a high amount of young folks. It's the first poll I've seen of Iowa that puts Obama ahead. The question becomes - what will be Obama's strategy to get those voters to the caucus, and how do you make them effective caucus-goers? You don't just show up at a caucus, you have to politick for your candidate. Can Obama teach enough young voters how to do that to make the difference?
  

  Also interesting in this poll is that Edwards practically tied with Hillary for the remaining youth support. Is he starting to gain ground among Millenials?

• If you can get past the starry-eyed rhetoric for his preferred candidate, Jacob Alperin-Sheriff has an interesting post on the Students for Barack Obama blog asking why Obama is the preferred candidate of young voters. I think the questions are right, though I don't know that I agree with his conclusions.
• Four Presidential Candidates will be stopping in to the Daily Show before the end of the month.
• Campus Progress reports on the Student Association for Voter Empowerment (SAVE), a new organization dedicated to removing barriers to youth participation on election day. They've got some interesting ideas about registration vs. education and ideology. Not sure I agree 100%, but they definitely deserve a closer look.
• Hillary Clinton is now promoting the idea of a Public Service Academy. She also got slapped around at Yearly Kos during a question about Lobbyists.
  
• Chris Bowers at Open Left had two posts about the health of the progressive movement - Blogosphere Diversity and Why the Progressive Movement has Stalled.
• Rudy Giuliani's daughter became the next Obama Girl.
• Taking a look at the other side of the aisle, the young Republicans are getting restless.
• Last but absolutely not least, this was the viral video of Yearly Kos:
  

As I noted in last Friday's Around the Tubes, Senetor Chris Dodd (D-CT), who is running for President, announced his National Service Agenda this weekend, and I am impressed.

Here are some of the plan's highlights:

• Promote the Corporation for National Service (CNS) to Cabinet Status. Through Executive Order, in a Dodd Administration, the Executive Director of the Corporation for National Service will be part of the Cabinet.

• Mandate School-Based Service as a Requirement for High School Graduation. Under the Dodd plan, every student in America will be required to perform 100 hours of community-based service prior to high school graduation.
• Double the Size of the Peace Corps by 2011 and Again by 2050. As President, Chris Dodd will double the number of Peace Corps volunteers, expand the number of countries in which volunteers are stationed and provide opportunities for Peace Corps volunteers to serve in their local communities when they return home.
• Dramatically increase the number of AmeriCorps Members to 1,000,000 and immediately raise the amount of the education award.. The Dodd plan will significantly increase the number of AmeriCorps volunteers and will annually increase the education award to reflect the skyrocketing cost of tuition.
• Create a Rapid Response Reserve Corps. Dodd's Rapid Response Reserve Corps will mobilize national service program alumni, as well as retired military and National Guard personnel, to respond to national disasters.

This plan is (imo) great for many reasons. First of all, as we like to point out on this site on a regular basis: young people are not apathetic, disengaged, slackers who are unwilling to do selfless work Instead, young people are volunteering in record numbers, but they do sometimes lack access to meaningful programs. We also have a great amount of need in our communities for the energy and excitement young people bring to civic project, and so this seems like a perfect way to engage young people and help our communities at the same time.

Second, I obviously think that it is extremely important for politicians to enact legislation that makes a positive impact on young people's lives and if Democrats want to ride the wave of youth interest in, and engagement of, the political process they're going to have to take the lead. Senator Dodd seems genuinely concerned about the problems facing young people and I really hope that youth focused groups bring attention to the legislation that Dodd is pushing for, which can give younger voters a reason to vote.

I really think that the focus on patriotism and working to improve our communities and our nation, rather than an overtly partisan appeal, is both effective and needed. Most young people who are volunteering do so to help out others and/or feel like a part of something bigger, and this type of appeal should resonate broadly and cut through the cynicism that I assume some feel when they hear political appeals like this. I personally always dreamed of joining the Peace Corps or doing some form of national service, but the opportunities never seemed real enough. I also feel a great pride in my community and my nation, and I would have (and still would) love to show that love by giving back in some non-military fashion. While I usually flinch at attempts to move past partisanship, when it comes to doing something that helps the greater good I believe that most people can agree to come together and work to make things better. (Please don't queue kumbaya )

What separates this plan, imo, from John Edward's OneCorps is that Edward's site focuses a little too much on the candidate and not enough on the overall mission,. This is one reason why I'd guess there aren't many young people pictured on the OneCorps site, and it's definitely the reason that I never really considered working through OneCorps.

There's a lot more to discuss about Dodd's plan, and about the virtues of national service in general, but I'll have to leave it for now. What do you think about this plan?

Below is the video of Dodd's announcement, the text can be found here.