Blog powered by TypePad

« March 30, 2008 - April 5, 2008 | Main | April 13, 2008 - April 19, 2008 »

April 6, 2008 - April 12, 2008

April 12, 2008

THE PRESCRIPTION FOR POSITIVE CHANGE IN WASHINGTO

(Prospect, KY).  Mitch McConnell’s claim to be the “Godfather of Green” bemuses Mike Cassaro.  In yesterday’s Courier-Journal, Joe Gerth reports that McConnell is trying to portray himself as a friend of the environment. Mr. Gerth also reports that the League of Conservation Voters’ named Mitch McConnell as the “Don of the Dirty Dozen.”

Mike Cassaro heartily agrees with the League’s assessment of Mitch McConnell’s environmental record.  “For 23 years, Mitch McConnell has done very little, if anything, to clean up Kentucky’s water, air, and land.  He has also belittled anybody who talks about global warming.  McConnell’s environmental awakening is totally poll driven,” claims Mike Cassaro

Mike Cassaro calls McConnell’s conversion to green especially sinister in light of McConnell’s continuous support of Bush’s appointments to the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and other such agencies. These appointees have acted to undermine these agencies’ mission, which is to protect our environment. 

As your U.S. Senator, Mike Cassaro would work diligently to ensure that the President nominates appropriate people to the EPA and other related agencies. Government enforcement of existing environment protection policies start with these agencies. We must strengthen these federal regulations and not (as Bush and McConnell want) eliminate them,” states Mike Cassaro.

As your U.S. Senator, Mike Cassaro would support pro-environmental initiatives in the Senate. He would propose that coal companies put up a financial bond for the costs associated with restoring our environment.  This bond must exceed foreseeable expenses for reclamation and restoration of the environmental impact by the mining operations. Mike would co-sponsor proposals for developing alternative sources of energy, such as fusion. He is especially interested in promoting sustainable farming, which preserves value of our soils and without damaging the crops.

Mike Cassaro’s strong support of environmental issues reflects his way of life. Mike and his family have an environmentally responsible life style.  Their life style includes heating the house with renewable energy source, wood, and growing and eating organically grown vegetables.   Mike and his wife have also taught his two teenagers the importance of being environmentally responsible.  Mike professes that “teaching your children to protect the Earth, as a precious planet, is one of the most important duties of parenting. “

--Mike Cassaro for U.S. Senator Campaign; courtesy of Frank Leidermann, Acting Editor

April 11, 2008

Clinton Reponds to Bush on Iraq

"Today, President Bush delivered yet another address on Iraq - but we've heard enough speeches that are long on promises, short on facts."

"And the fact is, there will probably be more troops in Iraq after the surge than before the surge. Iraq has barely moved toward political reconciliation, meeting only a few of the benchmarks set out by the Bush administration at the start of the surge. And violence has once again spiked in Baghdad and Basra.

"On Tuesday, I asked General Petraeus when he came before the Senate Armed Services Committee what conditions would mean we should change course, given that the surge has failed to achieve political reconciliation. He did not answer.

"Yesterday I called on President Bush to answer the question General Petraeus did not. But the President refuses to face reality.

"I want to commend President Bush for agreeing to cut the length of deployments from 15 to 12 months. But it is deeply unfortunate that the president only made this change when the strain he placed on our forces required it.

"Now, once again President Bush is asking Americans for time and patience - but the American people are saying he's had enough of both.

"Our troops have done all that's been asked of them and more. It's time for the president to answer the question being asked of him: in the wake of the failed surge, what is the endgame in Iraq?

"As president, I will do what this president has failed to do: recognize reality and end the war responsibly."

--U.S. Senator Hillary Clinton

--Clinton Campaign; courtesy of Frank Leidermann, Acting Editor

Obama Responds to Bush on Iraq

"President Bush gave no answer to the most important question about the way forward in Iraq: how will we end this war that is not making us safer? After five years, over four thousand lives, and over half a trillion dollars, we have a blank check strategy in Iraq that is overstretching our military, distracting us from the other challenges we face, burdening our economy, and failing to pressure the Iraqi government to take responsibility for their future."

"We cannot press Iraq's leaders to resolve their differences and spend their money if our plan is to stay in Iraq indefinitely. We cannot relieve the enormous strain on our military and our military families unless we restore adequate time at home for our troops - 12 month deployments represent a step forward, but we need to give our troops adequate dwell time at home.

"We cannot finish the fight in Afghanistan and focus on Osama bin Laden and al Qaeda's core leadership unless we end this war that should've never been authorized.

"The decision to go to war in Iraq was an enormous strategic blunder, and President Bush is only adding to his disastrous legacy by refusing to show the American people any clear goal or any clear plan to end the war.

"When I am president, I will bring our combat brigades home in 16 months, engage in the direct diplomacy in the region that is necessary to stabilize Iraq, restore our military strength, and renew our security and standing in the world. Our heroic troops have accomplished every mission that we have given them in Iraq and they have done so brilliantly; it is time to bring them home, and to ask the Iraqis to take responsibility for their country."

--U.S. Senator Barack Obama

--Obama Campaign; courtesy of Frank Leidermann, Acting Editor

President Bush's Statement on IRAQ

"Good morning. Fifteen months ago, I announced the surge. And this week, General Petraeus and Ambassador Crocker gave Congress a detailed report on the results."

"The immediate goal of the surge was to bring down the sectarian violence that threatened to overwhelm the government in Baghdad, restore basic security to Iraqi communities, and drive the terrorists out of their safe havens. As General Petraeus told Congress, American and Iraqi forces have made significant progress in all these areas. While there is more to be done, sectarian violence is down dramatically. Civilian deaths and military deaths are also down. Many neighborhoods once controlled by al Qaeda have been liberated. And cooperation from Iraqis is stronger than ever - more tips from residents, more Iraqis joining their security forces, and a growing movement against al Qaeda called the 'Sons of Iraq.'

"Improvements in security have helped clear the way for political and economic developments described by Ambassador Crocker. These gains receive less media coverage, but they are vital to Iraq's future. At the local level, businesses are re-opening and provincial councils are meeting. At the national level, there's much work ahead, but the Iraqi government has passed a budget and three major 'benchmark' laws. The national government is sharing oil revenues with the provinces. And many economic indicators in Iraq - from oil production to inflation - are now pointed in the right direction.

"Serious and complex challenges remain in Iraq, from the presence of al Qaeda to the destructive influence of Iran, to hard compromises needed for further political progress. Yet with the surge, a major strategic shift has occurred. Fifteen months ago, America and the Iraqi government were on the defensive; today, we have the initiative. Fifteen months ago, extremists were sowing sectarian violence; today, many mainstream Sunni and Shia are actively confronting the extremists. Fifteen months ago, al Qaeda had bases in Iraq that it was using to kill our troops and terrorize the Iraqi people; today, we have put al Qaeda on the defensive in Iraq, and we're now working to deliver a crippling blow. Fifteen months ago, Americans were worried about the prospect of failure in Iraq; today, thanks to the surge, we've renewed and revived the prospect of success.

"With this goal in mind, General Petraeus and Ambassador Crocker have submitted recommendations on the way forward. After detailed discussions with my national security team, including the secretary of defense, secretary of state, and the Joint Chiefs of Staff, I've accepted these recommendations.

"The recommendation likely to receive the most attention is on troop levels. General Petraeus has reported that security conditions have improved enough to withdraw all five surge brigades by the end of July. That means that by July 31st, the number of U.S. combat brigades in Iraq will be down by 25 percent from last year.

"Beyond that, General Petraeus says he'll need time to consolidate his forces and assess how this reduced American presence will affect conditions on the ground before making measured recommendations on further reductions. And I've told him he'll have all the time he needs.

"Some have suggested that this period of evaluation will be a 'pause.' That's misleading, because none of our operations in Iraq will be on hold. Instead, we will use the months ahead to take advantage of opportunities created by the surge - and continue operations across the board.

"All our efforts are aimed at a clear goal: a free Iraq that can protect its people, support itself economically, and take charge of its own political affairs. No one wants to achieve this goal more than the Iraqis themselves. Those who say that the way to encourage further progress is to back off and force the Iraqis to fend for themselves are simply wrong. The Iraqis are a proud people who understand the enormity of the challenges they face and are anxious to meet them. But they know that they still need our help until they can stand by themselves. Our job in the period ahead is to stand with the Iraqi government as it makes tough choices and makes the transition to responsibility for its own security and its own destiny.

"So what will this transition look like? On the security front, thanks to the significant progress General Petraeus reported this week, it is clear that we're on the right track. In the period ahead, we will stay on the offense against the enemy. As we speak, U.S. Special Forces are launching multiple operations every night to capture or kill al Qaeda leaders in Iraq. Coalition and Iraqi forces are also stepping up conventional operations against al Qaeda in northern Iraq, where terrorists have concentrated after being largely pushed from central and western Iraq. And Prime Minister Maliki's government has launched operations in Basra that make clear a free Iraq will no longer tolerate the lawlessness by Iranian-backed militants.

"In the period ahead, we'll also continue to train, equip, and support the Iraqi security forces, continue to transfer security responsibilities to them as provinces become ready, and move over time into an overwatch role. The Iraqi army and police are increasingly capable, and leading the fight to secure their country. As Iraqis assume the primary role in providing security, American forces will increasingly focus on targeted raids against the terrorists and extremists, they will continue training Iraqi forces, and they will be available to help Iraq's security forces if required.

"On the economic front, Iraq is moving forward. With Iraq's economy growing, oil revenues on the rise, and its capital investment expanding, our economic role in the country is changing. Iraqis in their recent budget would outspend us on reconstruction by more than ten to one. And American funding for large-scale reconstruction projects is approaching zero. Our share of Iraq's security costs will drop, as well, as Iraqis pay for the vast majority of their own army and police. And that's the way it should be. Ultimately, we expect Iraq to shoulder the full burden of these costs. In the period ahead, Iraq's economy will increasingly move away from American assistance, rely on private investment, and stand on its own.

"On the political front, Iraq has seen bottom-up progress - as tribes and other groups in the provinces who fought terror are now turning to rebuilding local political structures and taking charge of their own affairs. Progress in the provinces is leading to progress in Baghdad, as Iraqi leaders increasingly act together and they share power, and they forge compromises on behalf of the nation. Upcoming elections will consolidate this progress. They'll provide a way for Iraqis to settle disputes through the political process instead of through violence. Iraqis plan to hold provincial elections later this year, and these elections will be followed by national elections in 2009.

"On the diplomatic front, Iraq will increase its engagement in the world - and the world must increase its engagement with Iraq. To help in this effort, I'm directing Ambassador Crocker and General Petraeus to visit Saudi Arabia on their trip back to Iraq. I'm directing our nation's senior diplomats to meet with the leaders in Jordan, the UAE, and Qatar, and Kuwait and Egypt. In each capital, they will brief them on the situation in Iraq, and encourage these nations to reopen their embassies in Baghdad, and increase their overall support for Iraq. This will be followed by Secretary Rice's trip to the third Expanded Neighbors Conference in Kuwait City and the second International Compact with Iraq meeting in Stockholm.

"A stable, successful, independent Iraq is in the strategic interests of Arab nations. And all who want peace in the Middle East should support a stable, democratic Iraq. And we will urge all nations to increase their support this year.

"The regime in Tehran also has a choice to make. It can live in peace with its neighbor, enjoy strong economic and cultural and religious ties. Or it can continue to arm and train and fund illegal militant groups, which are terrorizing the Iraqi people and turning them against Iran. If Iran makes the right choice, America will encourage a peaceful relationship between Iran and Iraq. Iran makes the wrong choice, America will act to protect our interests, and our troops, and our Iraqi partners.

"On each of these fronts - security, economic, political, and diplomatic - Iraqis are stepping forward to assume more responsibility for the welfare of their people and the fate of their country. In all these fronts, America will continue to play an increasingly supporting role.

"Our work in Iraq will still demand sacrifices from our whole nation, especially our military, for some time to come. To ease the burden on our troops and their families, I've directed the secretary of defense to reduce deployment lengths from 15 months to 12 months for all active Army soldiers deploying to the Central Command area of operations. These changes will be effective for those deploying after August 1st. We'll also ensure that our Army units will have at least a year home for every year in the field. Our nation owes a special thanks to the soldiers and families who've supported this extended deployment. We owe a special thanks to all who serve in the cause of freedom in Iraq.

"The stress on our force is real, but the Joint Chiefs have assured me that an all-volunteer force - our all-volunteer force is strong and resilient enough to fight and win this war on terror. The trends in Iraq are positive. Our troops want to win. Recruiting and retention have remained strong during the surge. And I believe this: I believe the surest way to depress morale and weaken the force would be to lose in Iraq.

"One key to ensuring that our military remains ready is to provide the resources they need promptly. Congress will soon consider a vital emergency war funding request. Members of Congress must pass a bill that provides our troops the resources they need - and does not tie the hands of our commanders or impose artificial timelines for withdrawal. This bill must also be fiscally responsible. It must not exceed the reasonable $108 billion request I sent to Congress months ago. If the bill meets all these requirements, it will be a strong show of support for our troops. If it doesn't, I'll veto it.

"Some in Washington argue that the war costs too much money. There's no doubt that the costs of this war have been high. But during other major conflicts in our history, the relative cost has been even higher. Think about the Cold War. During the Truman and Eisenhower administrations, our defense budget rose as high as 13 percent of our total economy. Even during the Reagan administration, when our economy expanded significantly, the defense budget still accounted for about 6 percent of GDP. Our citizens recognized that the imperative of stopping Soviet expansion justified this expense. Today, we face an enemy that is not only expansionist in its aims, but has actually attacked our homeland - and intends to do so again. Yet our defense budget accounts for just over 4 percent of our economy - less than our commitment at any point during the four decades of the Cold War. This is still a large amount of money, but it is modest - a modest fraction of our nation's wealth - and it pales when compared to the cost of another terrorist attack on our people.

"We should be able to agree that this is a burden worth bearing. And we should be able to agree that our national interest require the success of our mission in Iraq. Iraq is the convergence point for two of the greatest threats to America in this new century - al Qaeda and Iran. If we fail there, al Qaeda would claim a propaganda victory of colossal proportions, and they could gain safe havens in Iraq from which to attack the United States, our friends and our allies. Iran would work to fill the vacuum in Iraq, and our failure would embolden its radical leaders and fuel their ambitions to dominate the region. The Taliban in Afghanistan and al Qaeda in Pakistan would grow in confidence and boldness. And violent extremists around the world would draw the same dangerous lesson that they did from our retreats in Somalia and Vietnam. This would diminish our nation's standing in the world, and lead to massive humanitarian casualties, and increase the threat of another terrorist attack on our homeland.

"On the other hand, if we succeed in Iraq after all that al Qaeda and Iran have invested there, it would be a historic blow to the global terrorist movement and a severe setback for Iran. It would demonstrate to a watching world that mainstream Arabs reject the ideology of al Qaeda, and mainstream Shia reject the ideology of Iran's radical regime. It would give America a new partner with a growing economy and a democratic political system in which Sunnis and Shia and Kurds all work together for the good of their country. And in all these ways, it would bring us closer to our most important goal - making the American people safer here at home.

"I want to say a word to our troops and civilians in Iraq. You've performed with incredible skill under demanding circumstances. The turnaround you have made possible in Iraq is a brilliant achievement in American history. And while this war is difficult, it is not endless. And we expect that, as conditions on the ground continue to improve, they will permit us to continue the policy of return on success. The day will come when Iraq is a capable partner of the United States. The day will come when Iraq is a stable democracy that helps fight our common enemies and promote our common interests in the Middle East. And when that day arrives, you'll come home with pride in your success, and the gratitude of your whole nation. God bless you."

--President George W. Bush

--White House Press Release; courtesy of Frank Leidermann, Acting Editor

Real Clear Politics Election 2008

REAL CLEAR POLITICS ELECTION 2008
Democrats Obama-Clinton Spread
Total Delegates 1641 - 1505 Obama + 136
Pledged Delegates 1415 - 1251 Obama + 164
Popular Vote 49.5 - 46.9 Obama +2.6
Popular Vote (w/FL) 48.5 - 47.1 Obama +1.4
Nat'l RCP Average 48.0 - 41.4 Obama +6.6
Pennsylvania 41.3 - 49.1 Clinton +7.8
North Carolina 48.6 - 33.0 Obama +15.6
General Election McCain-Obama McCain-Clinton
National Obama +0.6 McCain +1.6
Pennsylvania McCain +1.5 Clinton +3.7
Ohio McCain +5.2 Clinton +2.8
Florida McCain +8.0 McCain +3.0
Wisconsin Obama +2.0 McCain +4.7

--Real Clear Politics; courtesy of Frank Leidermann, Acting Editor

America needs a 21st Century GI Bill

By Harold Ford, Jr. and Al From, DLC Ideas Primary:

America is rooted in the belief that with opportunity comes responsibility-that each citizen willing to work hard and invest in the future should be given the chance to grow and succeed. To address the nation’s toughest challenges, and repair our fraying social fabric, we need to return to that founding principle. That can be accomplished by crafting a 21st Century GI Bill of Rights.

Here’s how it would work. The federal government would deposit $5,000 in the name of every newborn U.S. child into a tax-free, college education-type fund. Families would be encouraged to supplement it with additional payments. Through the miracle of compound interest, that fund would be worth nearly $17,000 by the time the child reached college age-even if a dime was never added to the account. A family that contributed just $100 a month would, 18 years later, have an additional $60,000. The money could be tapped any time between the ages of 18 and 25 to pay for college, start a business or buy a first home.

To access the government’s contribution (with interest), however, a person would have to commit to one year of civilian or military service. If the person declined to serve, he or she could, of course, withdraw any additional funds contributed to the account. But the federal contribution would return to the Treasury.

That’s all there is to it: a basic bargain between [1] Washington and every child born as a U.S. citizen. Government will invest in your future, but to redeem that investment you have to serve your country.

That’s a bold idea that’s rooted in history. Nearly half of the 16 million Americans who served in the Armed Forces during World War II used the GI Bill to improve their education-and 11 million bought homes. It’s no exaggeration to say that the GI Bill was instrumental in building the middle class as we know it now.

A new GI Bill could have a similar, dramatic impact on America. Many young Americans would choose to serve in the military, providing the armed forces with the leadership and talent they badly need. Others would join AmeriCorps or the Peace Corps, providing invaluable civilian service.

A new GI Bill would offer more young Americans the chance to go to college. Over a lifetime of work, a college graduate earns nearly $500,000 more than a high school graduate. But the cost of college keeps going up, and providing every child a personal savings account from birth would make it possible for millions more to attend.

Critics will undoubtedly say it’s too expensive-the same charge they used against the GI Bill seven decades ago. But history has shown that the GI Bill has generated $7 in economic benefit for every $1 invested, and that it provided an education for three U.S. presidents, three Supreme Court justices and 14 Nobel Prize winners.

Moreover, because the new version would be designed as a defined contribution program rather than a defined benefit, its long-term cost would be reduced: A $5,000 investment at birth will be worth much more when it is withdrawn because of compound interest. Over time, money not claimed by those who chose not to serve would be recycled (with interest) to lower the cost of the program.

This proposed bill is not a panacea for all of our nation’s ills. But it could be a cornerstone idea, restoring the basic bargain of opportunity and responsibility that has made America the most prosperous country on Earth.

NOTE: This piece originally appeared in the [2] Chicago Tribune.


Article printed from Ideas Primary: http://www.ideasprimary.com

URL to article: http://www.ideasprimary.com/?p=486

URLs in this post:
[1] Washington: http://www.chicagotribune.com/topic/us/washington-PLGEO100104900000000.topic
[2] Chicago Tribune: http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion/chi-oped_0321_gi_newmar21,0,6204315.story

--DLC IDEAS PRIMARY; courtesy of Frank Leidermann, Acting Editor

McCain Says Troops Need ‘Significant Educational Benefits,’ But Still Won’t Sign Onto New GI Bill

On ABC’s The View this morning, Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) was asked about the great strain placed on U.S. troops due to the Iraq war. McCain recognized the strain and said that in order to motivate Americans to join the military, the government should provide stronger “educational benefits”:

There a certain number who will join out of patriotism, thank God. And then there’s those who turn 18 or 19 or 20 or 21, and they look at their options. And one of the thing we ought to do is provide them significant educational benefits in return for serving. Americans will always serve their country. Americans will, if they’re motivated to do so.

McCain’s support of “significant educational benefits” is ironic, considering that he is still “hedging on whether he will support a ‘GI Bill for the 21st Century,’” as Jon Soltz and Gen. Wesley Clark note in today’s LA Times. That bill, sponsored by Sens. Jim Webb (D-VA) and Chuck Hagel (R-NE), would help fund higher education for service members who had served in active duty since 9/11.

“As de facto leader of the party, McCain could signal to other Republicans to sign on to the bill and assure passage,” Soltz and Clark note. VoteVets and BraveNewFilms has released a video on the new GI Bill and McCain.

On the View, McCain said, “that’s what I believe I can do as President,” referring to implementing the benefits for troops. Curiously, he won’t do it now.

--Think Progress; courtesy of Frank Leidermann, Acting Editor

April 09, 2008

Elizabeth Edwards Backs Clinton Health Care Plan

by Pamela Leavey, The Democratic Daily

In an interview airing on Wednesday with “Good Morning America’s” Robin Roberts, Elizabeth Edwards “said she believed Clinton’s health care plan was more inclusive than that of the Illinois senator.” Edwards recently “began work as a senior fellow at the liberal think tank, the Center for American Progress.”

You need that universality in order to get the cost savings … I just have more confidence in Sen. Clinton’s policy than Sen. Obama’s on this particular issue,” she said.

Edwards also said she “thought letting the race end at the convention was a good idea.”

I don’t actually think it’s a bad idea to have an open convention, where we actually got to hash out what the differences [between the candidates] were and how important they are,” she said.

She “discounted the idea of her husband, John, accepting a place as either candidate’s running mate” and said she “liked the idea of Clinton and Obama running together on a so-called dream ticket.”

If you like the idea of the “dream ticket” – sign the petition to let the DNC know.

--The Democratic Daily; courtesy of Frank Leidermann, Acting Editor

Petraeus Hedges On Whether Iraq War Makes U.S. Safer: ‘It Can Only Be Answered By History’

In last September’s hearing, Gen. Petraeus was asked whether the Iraq war makes the U.S. safer. “I don’t know,” Petraeus responded. Today, Sen. John Warner (R-VA) pressed Petraeus and Ambassador Ryan Crocker again. “Is all this sacrifice bringing about a more secure America?” he asked.

But Petraeus — seemingly glancing at his notes — did not directly answer. “There is no longer a ruthless dictator in Iraq,” he said. “Ultimately, it can only be answered by history, once the outcome in Iraq has been determined. … I believe the more important question is at this point how to achieve our our important interests in Iraq.”

Warner, noticing Petraeus’s hedge, pressed again:

WARNER: It was a fairly simple question: does that translate into a greater security for those of us at home? … Can you now just tell us in simple language tell us yes it is worth it, and it is making us safer here at home?

PETRAEUS: Senator, I do believe it is worth it, otherwise I would have not accepted. … I took on the task of, the privilege of command of MNF-Iraq because I do believe that it is worth, and I do believe the interests there are of enormous importance, again, to our country, not just to the people of Iraq and the people of that region and the world.

When Warner asked Crocker the same question, Crocker praised efforts against al Qaeda in Iraq (AQI), saying AQI has been “lessened.” “I do believe that makes America safer,” Crocker said.

Petraeus and Crocker refused to admit that fighting in Iraq does nothing to decrease the threat from the global al Qaeda terrorist network. FBI Director Robert Mueller recently cited the “three-tiered threat” that al Qaeda poses to the West, but Iraq is not referenced in that analysis:

The top tier was the core of the organisation which had established new sanctuaries in Pakistan’s tribal areas. The middle tier was the most complex, consisting of small, self-directed groups like the London bombers of 7/7 who had some ties to al-Qaeda’s leadership. The bottom tier, said Mr Mueller, was made up of homegrown extremists who met on the internet instead of in foreign training camps.

Similarly, the New York Times reported today that fears of Iraq becoming a terrorist incubator “appear to be overblown,” as “the number of fighters going to Iraq [from Europe] has been extremely small,” according to French intelligence. But the longer the U.S. occupies Iraq, the danger that Iraq may become an incubator will increase.

--Think Progress; courtesy of Frank Leidermann, Acting Editor

No campus surge for Obama in Pa.

By , Politico

With 159 colleges and universities and approximately 680,000 students, Pennsylvania’s campus vote would appear to be Barack Obama’s ace in the hole in the state’s April 22 primary.

Yet in a tough contest where Obama will need every vote he can get, it’s unlikely that one of his most loyal constituencies will be able to provide him with much of a boost.

One reason is the nature of the state’s college students. With numerous nationally recognized schools ranging from elite, small liberal arts colleges such as Haverford College to the Ivy League’s University of Pennsylvania, not to mention enormous public universities such as Penn State, Pennsylvania is a net importer of students.

Many of those out-of-state students are registered to vote in their home states. Sean Coit, 20, a junior at Saint Joseph’s University in Philadelphia and the news editor of the school newspaper, The Hawk, is among them.

Although he follows politics closely and is interning with a Democratic consultant in Philadelphia, he will not be voting in the Pennsylvania primary since he is registered to vote in Virginia at his parents’ house.

“A lot [of students] are voting absentee at home,” said Coit of his fellow out-of-state students.

Pennsylvania’s election rules also act to suppress the college vote. The state has a closed primary, which means only registered Democrats can vote. Since college-age young people are disproportionately likely to be registered as independents, that will serve to limit the number of students who can vote.

Pennsylvania’s approach is distinct from Iowa and New Hampshire, two states where college students turned out in force in part because voters were permitted to register on Election Day and also because the two contests were open to independents.

While the Obama campaign has embarked on an effort to register students in Pennsylvania, a late start has limited its effectiveness

According to Swarthmore College senior Anne Kolker, the Pennsylvania coordinator for Students for Barack Obama, her group began its campus registration drive in earnest only in late February. Efforts were further impeded by the fact that the registration deadline came shortly after many schools lost a week of classes to spring break.

According to Kolker, the Obama campaign netted “well over 5,000” new registrants. But that’s not nearly enough new voters to make an impact, says Terry Madonna, director of the Franklin and Marshall poll.

“I don’t think that’s an impressively large number,” said Madonna. “There are more than 4 million Democrats in the state and let’s say the turnout is 50 percent — and that doesn’t strike me as improbable. Two million people vote and Obama registered [at most] 10,000. You can do the math. That’s not a huge percentage.”

On the St. Joe’s campus in Philadelphia, Coit said he saw a voter registration presence in the weeks before the deadline, but students were not being constantly reminded to register. “There was definitely some voter registration in the cafeteria,” said Coit. “I wouldn’t say it was huge but it was definitely going on.”

The Obama campaign acknowledges that an earlier start to its youth registration efforts in Pennsylvania might have helped. “In campaigns you always wish you had started earlier,” said Obama’s Pennsylvania spokesman Sean Smith.

Still, the campaign appears to have a superior campus organization to Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton's in Pennsylvania. While Students for Barack Obama claim chapters on over 70 Pennsylvania campuses, the Clinton campaign has only 35.

The Clinton campaign says it’s not giving up on the student vote. Emily Hawkins, Clinton’s national youth vote director, wrote in an e-mail that the campaign is, “Doing things like holding ‘Hillary weeks,’ meeting with the editorial boards of [college] papers, having ‘why Hillary’ parties, flyering.”

--Politico; courtesy of Frank Leidermann, Acting Edito

.