In the past couple of days, I've seen a diary, and lots of comments, saying that Dodd is trying to disenfranchise the youth vote in Iowa. I've also seen a diary, and comments, that Obama is using Rovian tactics.
Before we decide that it's "Off with his head!" for either Democrat, both of whom I admire, let me explain why I believe neither claim is true.
Let's look first at some history, because as always, context is everything.
There has been an issue in Iowa, in previous years, as to whether campaign staff should caucus there. Many staffers may be living there for a year or more, and as such were often legally eligible to caucus. So if it's perfectly legal, why not? Well, some felt that it was not really fair. That the caucus ought to be for Iowans with roots in the community, not out-of-staters there temporarily. To have all one's staffers caucus, while legal, would be bad form and gaming the system in a sort of smarmy way.
Earlier this year, Obama's campaign, among others, made an agreement not to do so. Obama agreed that it was not entirely fair, and in fact, the "fraudulent" quote from Dodd that everyone became so lathered over is actually a quote from Obama's promise earlier this year. Note that these are Obama's words, not Dodd's:
condemn any attempt to fraudulently influence the caucuses
Please realize that in that quote, Obama was speaking of activities that may be perfectly legal under election law.
So, fast forward. Dodd hears of Obama's brochure drive, and the fact that not only is he encouraging students to caucus, but he is encouraging students whose home is elsewhere to come back to caucus in Iowa rather than their "home" state. One can argue which place is truly home, and the law says that they can vote in either, but not both. But Obama was convincing them to choose Iowa rather than voting in their family's state.
Dodd then sees a political opportunity to cry foul. He tries to throw back in Obama's face a promise that Obama made to not have campaign staff vote in Iowa. He tried to do a "gotcha" and claim that encouraging out-of-state students to come back to Iowa and vote was a breach of Obama's original promise, and just as "fraudulent" as having temporary out-of-state staffers vote.
This was Dodd's fuller statement, in context:
DES MOINES - Chris Dodd for President Iowa State Director Julie Andreeff Jensen today released the following statement in response to Des Moines Register columnist David Yepsen’s piece about the Obama campaign’s new strategy:
"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. Given that the Obama campaign once said they
‘absolutely condemn any attempt to fraudulently influence the caucuses,’ we had hoped they’d follow the Dodd campaign’s lead in working to protect the integrity and spirit of the caucus process.
Full article is here
I think Dodd's wrong, of course. Let me repeat that: I think he is wrong. It's two different things, and many of those students are very much a part of the Iowa community, more so than their home state. But it was a clumsy attempt to nail Obama with going back on his word, not a calculated attempt to disenfranchise students. It was a miserably ill-advised and failed "gotcha" on hypocrisy.
Obama is not using Rove tactics. He has not forgotten every principle he ever had. He is a good Democrat. Obama found a way that the election law (voting in either place) will work to his favor, and is doing his utmost to exploit it. Bravo for him! He may get the nomination, and I'm glad to see he'll fight, and turn whatever he can to his advantage. We need that in our candidates.
Dodd is also a good Democrat. He has not forgotten every principle he ever had. He has fought for us on so many occasions, and is not a disenfranchiser the likes of the Jim Crow writers, and the nasty little groups that mess with ballots and obfuscate the language, or try to prevent people from getting to the polls. He really shouldn't be tarred with that brush. He's not actively tried to stop anyone from voting, he just tried to call hypocrisy on Obama, and did it in a very, very stupid and clumsy way.
I prefer not to think the worst of either of them, as neither has given me reason to suddenly think they have morphed into unprincipled Republicans. Your mileage may vary, but that's my story and I'm sticking to it. Once again, I'm just not very into that whole "accuse and eat your own" thing when it comes to Democrats, unless someone can give me a big fat buttload of incontrovertible proof.