by John McCormick, updated
WEST DES MOINES, Iowa -- Iowa's most influential political columnist is questioning the tactics of Sen. Barack Obama when it comes to encouraging college students not originally from Iowa to participate in the state's Jan. 3 precinct caucuses.
In his online column for The Des Moines Register, David Yepsen notes that there is nothing illegal about what Obama's campaign is proposing in a brochure being distributed to 50,000 students in the state.
"This raises the question of whether it’s fair, or politically smart," Yepsen writes. "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."
Obama's campaign is telling college students in a brochure that: "If you are not from Iowa, you can come back for the Iowa caucus and caucus in your college neighborhood.”
Yepsen's piece was written under the headline "The Illinois Caucus," a tongue-in-cheek reference to the large number of Illinois natives who attend school in Iowa, especially at the University of Iowa in Iowa City. (A Tribune story in October, linked here, looked at campaign efforts to organize the college vote in Iowa.)
"It’s not the first time Obama has profited from the fact he’s from an adjacent state," Yepsen writes. "Illinois residents routinely show up at the candidate’s events in eastern Iowa. (The first question Obama took at an Iowa town meeting was from a guy from Naperville.)"
A news story in the newspaper today, meanwhile, downplayed the likelihood of non-Iowa residents participating in the first-in-the-nation caucuses, quoting Iowa Secretary of State Michael Mauro as saying he thought Obama's instruction to college students were "playing within the rules."
Yepsen's column triggered a response this morning from the campaign of Sen. Chris Dodd of Connecticut, one of Obama's Democratic competitors.
"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," Dodd's Iowa Director Julie Andreeff-Jensen said in a statement. “'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."
Responding to some criticism from the campaign of Sen. Hillary Clinton of New York, Obama's spokesman issued a statement Saturday evening during the middle of a Democratic candidate forum in Des Moines.
"Rather than denigrating the caucus rights of students who go to school in Iowa, we would suggest the Clinton campaign organize them," spokesman Bill Burton said in a statement. "Their attack here is borne out of pure political frustration. Iowans are determined to launch a winning candidate for the Democratic Party to bring real change for our country. They will not be deterred by efforts to dampen participation and 11th-hour attacks."





Comments
I think Yepsen and Dodd may have forgotten their college experiences, or just didn't move to another state when they left for school.
When I went to college I felt like a true resident of my new state: the state I chose for myself. To be told my vote shouldn't count, because I was once from somewhere else, would have really offended me.
It really sounds as if nothing fishy was intended or attempted. It only sounds fishy if you've lived in the same place all your life.
Posted by: jason t. | December 1, 2007 1:37 PM
"The first question Obama took at an Iowa town meeting was from a guy from Naperville."
Oh my goodness! A plant!
Oh right. There's nothing wrong with it so long as it isn't Hillary who's doing it, even though his campaign is on record as denying they do it.
And Senator Dodd's, "[that]may be the way politics is played in Chicago, but not in Iowa" calls those "Machine" hypocrites out perfectly.
Posted by: Biggdawg | December 1, 2007 1:50 PM
I also question the assumption that the rules aren't operating as intended.
For the reasons I mention above, it would be unfair to treat voting age college students as nonresidents simply because they originated elsewhere. On what grounds would the students be disenfranchised? They live in Iowa. They are adults who have left home. And if you've ever paid out of state tuition, you know that it takes some time for the fact of your residence in state to kick in. In other words, it happens routinely that people who live in a state can pay out of state tuition there--for a year or more after they have been living and paying taxes at their new address.
Proof? It happened to me exactly that way when I went to school. Now why, again, do you think that merits some kind of punishment or exclusion?
One thing us for sure: everyone can only vote in one place. These students are Iowan voters with addresses in Iowa, and they have a right to vote somewhere. They won't be voting in Illinois.
Posted by: jason t. | December 1, 2007 2:27 PM
Obama is challenged by ethics in his dealing with Rezko and others I'm not surprised he'd bus in college kids to caucus in Iowa.
And the way it is in Cook County these kids will come back to Chicago and do a do over.
The Chicago Dem machine has always said vote early and often and it wouldn't be the first time the ole Chicago Dem machine voted dead people.
While in college at Loyola I worked for the Chicago American and it was discussed openly in the 50's how crooked the party machine played.
Jerry White, Springfield, IL
Posted by: Jerry White | December 1, 2007 3:57 PM
Obama is challenged by ethics in his dealing with Rezko and others I'm not surprised he'd bus in college kids to caucus in Iowa.
And the way it is in Cook County these kids will come back to Chicago and do a do over.
The Chicago Dem machine has always said vote early and often and it wouldn't be the first time the ole Chicago Dem machine voted dead people.
While in college at Loyola I worked for the Chicago American and it was discussed openly in the 50's how crooked the party machine played.
Jerry White, Springfield, IL
Posted by: Jerry White | December 1, 2007 3:57 PM
Rudy Giuliani's law firm lobbies for Citgo Petroleum Corp., a unit of the state-owned oil company controlled by Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez, who calls President Bush a "madman" and a "devil."
Jerry White,do you suffer from foot in mouth disease?
Posted by: Raving Loon | December 1, 2007 5:37 PM
This is really disgusting. And what's more disgusting is the double-standard that Obama supporters are applying. Had it been Hillary Clinton, they would all be up in arms about it but since it's Obama - it's okay. There have been verified instances where questioners during town hall meetings were planted by the Obama camp and yet you hear nary a word from the press. It's the hypocrisy that kills me.
I just find it hard to believe that fanboyism is alive and kicking in the political arena.
Posted by: Ralph | December 2, 2007 2:34 AM
The fact is, Obama lies worse than any other Democratic candidate today and yet it's Clinton that gets the brunt of this criticism. He is the worse hypocrite of all and yet he's quick on the draw when slinging this mud on everyone else. That's who he is, and with fanboys like people who post here without checking their facts, what need does he have to tell the truth?
He has done nothing for minorities as somebody else here has written so clearly and yet according to Michelle Obama, if you don't vote for her husband, you don't get it. Honey, they get it all right! They get that Obama has never stood up for anyone but himself and now he wants instant support because he's black.
When he was asked to speak by the Democrats last presidential elections, he talked about Obama, Obama and himself and blasted the other Democrats for being too attached to their principles and yet those in the far left favor him more than Hillary Clinton. I don't get this kind of "fanboyism".
I rather expected Democrats to decide based on facts than innuendo, substance over form. But here we have the most underqualified candidate since World War II become a contender for the nomination. This is George W. Bush "fanboyism" - Democrat-style.
Just look at how Obama responded to this criticism: instead of merely being steadfast in his belief that what they're doing is proper (to which I find some distaste because it's an organized thing - but it's still a matter of one's sense of propriety than anything else), he attacks the Hillary camp for getting volunteers to join the JJ Dinner - except that, the JJ Dinner is not the caucus. See how misleading and dishonest he is?
Posted by: Ralph | December 2, 2007 3:17 AM
What Clinton wants to disenfranchise the votes of students. She is becoming a Republican more and more every day. Students have the right to vote in the state they live in 9/10 months out of the year. The laws of Iowa supports and encourages this. Hillary is so desperate its not funny anymore.
Posted by: sonya | December 2, 2007 4:05 AM
Yepsen's logic is wrong here. Students have the right to vote where they go to school because they LIVE there. The only thing different this year is that the date moved to Jan 3rd which has made it HARDER for students to exercise their voting rights. This actually is more harmful to Obama than helpful.
Posted by: JStip | December 2, 2007 8:03 AM
Yepsen is wrong here. Students vote where they go to school because they LIVE there. The only thing different this time is that the Jan 3rd date makes it harder for them to exercise their voting rights.
Posted by: JStip | December 2, 2007 8:05 AM
[QUOTE]What Clinton wants to disenfranchise the votes of students. She is becoming a Republican more and more every day. Students have the right to vote in the state they live in 9/10 months out of the year. The laws of Iowa supports and encourages this. Hillary is so desperate its not funny anymore.[/QUOTE]
SONYA, you are WRONG. Here are the facts: Hillary has never said it was illegal. Hillary doesn't want to disenfranchise the college students.
What's in issue is the propriety of asking, organizing, financing, and transporting people from out of state to caucus in Iowa. While that is not illegal, it is so SLEAZY AND DEVIOUS that NO ONE IN LIVING MEMORY HAS EVER DONE IT. This is how arrogant OBAMA is. Nevermind propriety, nevermind if it subverts the spirit of the Iowa caucus, so long as he wins.
Even the REPUBLICANS would look like SAINTS compared to this LEVEL of DEVIOUSNESS DISPLAYED BY OBAMA.
The fact is - you'd be the first to condemn this had it been Clinton.
Posted by: Ralph | December 2, 2007 11:07 PM
I believe most Americans know what issues we face as a nation as we try to decide which candidate(s) will best resolve them. We see in John McCain’s life, past and present a devotion to serve his country. Anyone who knows Senator McCain will tell you that he has passion for what he believes in and a constant drive to serve his country to the best of his abilities with sincerity, truthfulness, and dedication.
Most Americans are aware of the courageous service John provided as a naval aviator and POW . But few can fully appreciate how bad the egregious hospitality of the Hanoi Hilton was .His main concerns were for other POWs’ life threatening conditions and how he could help them is spite of the injuries he had received prior to and during his confinement.
To this day John’s truthfulness and dedication for what he believes in is demonstrated by his sincere and noble service as a Senator of the United States of America. We could do a whole lot worse than vote for John Mc Cain as our next president of the United States for every man, woman and child in our country regardless of their political affiliation.
God Speed John Mc Cain
Posted by: John's Son | March 12, 2008 2:52 PM
Our constitution spells out in great detail that our country is ruled by law
and the remedies that can be taken to solve the problems that pop up in the Executive legislative and Judicial braches of our country.
The rub or bone of contention is that a church has taken on the care and feeding of a large segment of our society and has included political indoctrination for what ever reason.The evidence of this is on the recorded videos' we have repeatedly seen on TV that document the assertions that the USA govt. has resorted to programs of controling Black Americans that are similiar to what were used by Nazi Germany.
So what are we going to do about this?
First we should understand that when a person(s) repeats a lie often enough and the targets or victims of their efforts are made to feel totally dependent then it is perfectly understandable that they can control and or deceive those persons to what ever ends they choose.
Oboma claims of no knowledge of his churches accusations concerning the lies told by his churchs leader Rev. Wright concerning our country. If he is successful in persuading the voters of the United States of his ineptness in not knowing what his church stands for then we deserve what we get.
Posted by: John's Son | March 25, 2008 6:56 PM