The above chart plots the federal budget deficit (in real dollars) each year since 1989. Anyone can look at that chart and see the emptyness of Mulgrew's cries that those irresponsible Democrats caused the terrible national debt. Mulgrew may ignorantly claim that it was the Republicans in congress that restored fiscal discipline in the 90's, to which I would explain further that that the trend began in '93 and '94, before the republicans were in congress. More importantly, the reduction in the budget deficit was the direct result of the "Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1993." This bill passed the house without a SINGLE REPUBLICAN VOTE. That's right, all 175 Republican congressmen voted against the measure, and it passed the house 218 to 216. The act raised taxes on wealthy individuals and corporations, and the budget deficit began to fall.

Combined with economic growth during the 1990's, Clinton was actually able to run a budget surplus by 1998 to help pay down the debt. Then those crazy republicans got worried about paying down the debt too fast, and passed Bush's tax cuts without triggers to repeal them if the surplusses disappeared, and the rest is history. Republicans washed their hands of his '93 tax plan, and now Mulgrew wants to take credit for it?

There were a bunch of other frustratingly ignorant things that Mulgrew said, and when we get some video of the debate I'll write more (depending on what clips get included in the final cut, obviously).

I thought that this debate was great, and I think Mulgrew did his side no favors with his aggressively rude and patently silly arguments. His own teammate was embarrassed and rolling his/her eyes (don't want to incriminate anyone, but it's on tape...) when Mulgrew spoke.


I would love to do more debates, hopefully they can be tailored more narrowly so that Mulgrew can only lie about one thing at a time.

Your moment of Zen: Mulgrew asserted that more Americans die (he didn't say "are murdered," he said die) in Philadelphia each year than in Iraq, but you don't hear the Democrats calling for withdrawal from Philadelphia.

I leave it as an exercise to the reader to find the holes in Mulgrew's "logic."

We won't know yet what kind of effect this win will have on the race, but if Obama's team sat down on friday night and wrote a wishlist for what they wanted to happen, this probably would have surpassed it. If anything can give him the momentum he needs to go into Super Tuesday and come out stronger, this was it.

Furthermore, his victory speech was quite good. I always approach his speeches skeptically, because I can't imagine that every speech he gives is as good as it is inevitablly described, but I dare you to watch it and compare it to other contemporary politicians. They don't suffer the comparison well. Clinton, trying to minimize the significance of the primary, didn't even give a concession speech, and Edwards made the mistake of speaking after Obama. Edwards is a pretty good speaker, but his speech felt pretty flat after hearing Obama's.

My favorite part?

And as we leave this state with a new wind at our backs, and take this journey across the country we love with the message we've carried from the plains of Iowa to the hills of New Hampshire; from the Nevada desert to the South Carolina coast; the same message we had when we were up and when we were down – that out of many, we are one; that while we breathe, we hope; and where we are met with cynicism, and doubt, and those who tell us that we can't, we will respond with that timeless creed that sums up the spirit of a people in three simple words:

Yes. We. Can.

But anyway, I'm gushing. Watch it yourself.



I watched the returns from the Philly for Obama watch party, and it was a bit anti-climactic. The minute the polls closed, Obama was immediately the projected winner, as he had a 25% lead in the exit polls, which would require a miracle to be wrong enough for him to lose. As Edwards was trailing Clinton by 8-9 points all night for second, the only drama was whether Obama could stay over 50%. I didn't think he would, but then I have had an atrocious record of predicting results so far this year, and he finished with 55%.

The early projection did make for this funny image:
After 108 votes, he was already projected to win.

Anyway, this result improves his chances on Super Tuesday, and if Clinton and Obama both make it through Super Tuesday, Pennsylvania will begin to get really exciting. Between March 11th and our primary on April 22nd, there are NO OTHER DEMOCRATIC PRIMARIES OR CAUCUSES! Thats 6 weeks of attention to decide the nomination. If you have a favorite candidate, they will want and appreciate your help!

First, Peggy Banaszek, a candidate for state representative from Philadelphia, spoke to us for about a host of issues. I found this very interesting, because Peggy is a first time candidate with a background in both healthcare and college democrats, and she brought an interesting perspective about state and city politics. As you know, the Democrats just took control of the legislature this year, and Peggy emphasized that it's important to take advantage of the opportunity this affords Democrats. Peggy spoke for about 15 minutes, and took questions for just as long. Even though I wish that more people took advantage of the opportunity to listen and ask questions of a candidate, the fact that there were only 15 students made the meeting informal enough to be very interesting.

Anyone who is interested in helping Peggy's campaign can either contact here campaign at VotePeggy.com or contact us directly and we'll put you in touch with the campaign.

Next we voted on our executive board for 2008. Meet your new leaders!

Chairman: John L.
President: Sean M.
Vice President: Dadly C.
Treasurer: Barbara T.

Political Director: Kristen S.
Events Director: Danielle
Social Events Director: Giancarlo
Membership Director: Caroline T.
Technology Director: Sam C.
Fundraising Director: Theo S.

At our next meeting (February 10th) you can sign up for committees. I strongly recommend anyone who wants to help out sign up for 1 or 2 committees, as its the easiest way to get involved.

Our next meeting will be Sunday, February 10th, because we're skipping a week due to the superbowl. However, on Tuesday, Feb. 5th, we are hosting a watch party at Barahkis Grand Hall for Super Duper Tuesday. It will be a pretty big event, as we have university support and funding behind it. Stay tuned for more details about that.

We're also continuing to work on hosting the Neighborhood Networks conference here at Drexel on March 29th.

That ad was aful for a few reasons. The cheap production values practically scream "not a serious candidate." The fact that the whole thing looks like a mix between a parody of a political ad and a late night spot for your local furniture warehouse (off I-95! Everything Must Go!) doesn't help his cause either. I mean, when was the last time you saw a serious presidential candidate run an ad with a freaking 1-888 number? And was it just me, or did that voiceover guy sound sarcastic?

And what about that stock footage at the end of the ad? Hunter is clearly about 10 years younger in that clip than today. I guess he thinks he looks better without gray hair and wrinkes. You tell me.



But beyond that, why the hell Hunter thinks that grandstanding about the Mount Soledad Cross is a good basis for a presidential campaign is beyond me. The script for the ad reads like a silly parody of right wingers. Liberal judges trying to get rid of crosses?

Here's another of my Hunter favorites.



The best part about this one is at the end, when we learn that not only did Duncan Hunter approve of "this message," but he wrote it too! How impressive! How authentic! I can't imagine why no one takes this man seriously!

For contrast, take a look at this ad from Al Franken that's been getting some good press on the intertubes recently.



I liked it, and not just cause I'm a big fan of Al Franken. It was an effective biography ad, but it also obviously sought to improve his mid western street cred. He was born and raised in MN, but he became successful as a Big City writer and comedian, and now he's coming home to run for senate. It was a little tongue in cheek without going over the heads of older voters.

Recap
Al Franken, unsuprisingly, makes good ads.
Duncan Hunter, unsuprisingly, makes stupid ads.

If you aren't competent enough to produce a good ad, why should anyone think you're competent enough for elected office?

One of the only things I found interesting from that exit poll was the question "Which candidate is most likely to bring needed change?" The responses are given as the percentage of votes each candidate received from each group of respondents, by answer. It's kind of a trivial question because it presupposes "needed change," so you would expect the responses to correlate with who the respondents voted for, and in large part they do (although humorously, "Hunter" wasn't a choice, and his voters apparently chose "Thompson").

However, every candidate won a majority of respondents that said that he was "most likely to bring about change" except for Rudy 9ui11iani. He only won 36% of voters who thought that he was "most likely to bring about needed change" while Romney and McCain took 50% of those votes. This is probably best explained by the dynamic in Michigan; everyone knew that Romney needed a win, and more importantly, McCain needed a loss or the media would stop everything and nominate him right there in Detriot.

Also, with only 4% of 1200 respondents selecting Rudy, we;re talking about a sample size of ~40 people, and so it's not a particularly meaningful result.

Caveats aside, though, I think it's clear that Rudy's supporters have given up and have moved to their second choice. It seems like ages ago that Rudy was standing front and center in all the debates as the national frontrunner. Oh well. I guess the Republicans just forgot about 9/11.

I didn't watch tonights Democratic debate, and from what I've heard, that was a smart choice. If I hear the phrases "race card" or "gender card" one more time I'll, well, do nothing, because it will happen at least 20 more times before I go to bed.

Finally, a quick word of advice to CNN: Let's leave Larry King off the "best political team in television." It isn't because he's older than death; I just don't think he's particularly insightful. I got the distinct impression he doesn't care about politics at all and he'd much rather be asking Sylvia Brown if Anna Nicole Smith's ghost had anything interesting to say about Britney Spears. Actually, I think he did start talking about that...