Earlier someone (honestly forgot who; sorry!) posted a poll that not only asked who won, but who you supported going into the debate. Unfortunately the diarist accidentally goofed and had two options for undecideds who thought Obama won and no options for undecideds who thought Clinton won. Subsequently there were calls that the diary be deleted, and then it was.
I decided to repost a corrected version of the poll because I think it was a good idea, and I hope many people will participate because I think it's an interesting question. I also added an option for those who think it was a draw.
I've been trying to get a blog going for our college dems group, and the barebones beginnings are here. But I've found that blogger.com is UNBEARABLY slow. I realized there must be better options out there, so I've decided to appeal to the expertise of you all.
Help me get started. What are the best blog hosting sites? I'm looking for one that's free, fast, and simple.
PS: I realize this may not count as a substantive diary, but I hope you'll cut me some slack. I haven't posted a diary in over two years, and I know that a diary garners a lot more attention than a comment buried in an open thread somewhere.
It's funny how the press repeats itself. The word "Star" somehow works into every article written about Obama. His skills are impressive, and I loved his speech at the convention, but I'm still not sure where he stands on the spectrum.
Judging by his enthusiastic support from people here at Kos, I'm guessing he's further left than most Democrats in the senate. And some kossacks have compared him to Russ Feingold.
Is this an accurate comparason? How liberal is Obama?
I've been thinking a lot about ideology recently, specifically about what exactly it means to be a liberal/progressive/leftist. We're often accused of being for "Big Government" because of the social programs and government regulations that we've put in place.
But for me, being a liberal has always been about freedom. After all, "Liberal" and "Liberty" come from the same latin root: "liber" meaning choice. And throughout history we liberals have fought to protect and expand individual rights. It was the left that insisted that we include a bill of rights in the constitution, it was the left that led the abolition movement, the workers' rights movement, the women's suffrage movement, the civil rights movement, and most recently the gay rights movement. It was defined for me early on in a textbook somewhere that a liberal ideology was one that believed in "indiviual freedom and economic equality." This is a pretty good summary, but it's more complicated than that.
Dennis Kucinich endorsed Kerry today (and missed an important vote to do so, I might add) and yet, I can't find a single mention of it on John Kerry's website. Not on the homepage, not under news, not in the blog, not anywhere. Shouldn't Kerry be parading this news in front of Nader supporters? Or is he still scared of being called the L word?
Those of us who are on the DNC's mailing list got an email from Bill Clinton today telling us we need to show our loyalty to the party to by countering the RNC's attacks with donations to the DNC.
Here at dailykos, it's common practice to cite your sources with links. There are so many great political websites out there it's hard to keep track of them all. So I was thinking, why not have a whole thread devoted to sharing websites that we find particularly useful?
On one level, it's not surprising that the chorus of critics is growing louder. NCLB is the most significant education reform in a generation, and it is a morass of complex requirements on everything from who's tested to who can teach. Schools can land on a watch list for something as simple as testing only 94 percent of students - or 94 percent of a subgroup, like non-English speakers. Many districts don't understand what they're trying to implement.
Read this NY Times Article on yesterday's caucuses and tell me it isn't biased.
It says over and over again that Washington and Michigan used to be Dean strongholds, but that Kerry "romped" big victories. Never once does it mention that Dean did better in both states than polls anticipated.
Unlike some Dean supporters, I don't believe in media conspiracies, but I do think that this article went out of its way to snub Dean and congratulate Kerry. That's poor journalism.
There were a LOT of Democrats who considered running for President in 2004. We ended up with ten. Dean, Kerry, Edwards, Graham, Kucinich, Bruan, Sharpton, Lieberman, Gephardt, and Clark.
But let's pretend that the field was different. Who would you support?
Some may consider this a frivolous post, but I've spent some time recently looking up information on the Wisconsin Senator and damned if I can find one thing that he didn't do right.
