I was strongly opposed to the decision to invade Iraq in the first place, but since the war began I've been conflicted about what should be done next and need guidance. On the one hand the cost of the war will only increase the longer it continues so America should pull out, but on the other hand if America pulls out now, all the expense of the war (both in money and lives) would have been for nothing, so perhaps America should stay until it leaves Iraq better off than it was before the invasion. One can be opposed to making a mess without being opposed to cleaning it up. Starting the war was a huge mistake, but some would argue America should turn lemons into lemonade, or as Dr. Phil might say "if you can't make the right decision, at least make the decision right."
It seems to me that people on the anti-war left are so unhappy about the Iraq war because they believe they were not told the truth about what the true motive was. But what does the anti-war left believe the true motive was. There are two camps. Those who believe the war was motivated by a desire to dominate oil, and those who who believe the war was was motivated by a desire to protect Israel, but which view point is stronger among anti-war liberals?
I do not think Hillary would make a good vice president because I really think congress was just as responsible for the Iraq war as Bush was, because congress not only gave Bush the authorization to use force, but they also voted against United Nations diplomacy (the Levin Ammendment) which gave Bush the authority to ignore the United Nations. Having Hillary in particular support the war really mainstreamed it for the media and public, because here you have the most famous person in the senate, a woman who just spent 8 years in the white house and was expected to be the first woman president, and a woman who is quick to point out vast right-wing conspiracies, putting her faith in the president. This really gave other members congress, the media, and the American people guidance about their own views towards war, and really gave Democrats permission to support the war. And as the senator from the state where 9/11 took place, and as a woman who just spent 8 years in the white house, Hillary had the authority to really shape the debate.
While her votes themselves, and all the bipartisan legitimacy (not to mentiona actual authority) they gave Bush were her biggest mistakes, Hillary was also the person who really sold the case for war to the public and the media:
Way back when I thought Hillary would be the nominee I wrote a diary about whey it was time to go positive. Now that the nominee has been chosen I thouht it was once again time to offer tips on why being positive is a benefit.
Anthropologists have long divided the human species into races. Most classifications recognized at least three major races: Negroids, Caucasoids, and Mongoloids. Some added a fourth race known as australoids, while others insisted that there were only three races and argued over whether australoids were negroid or caucasoid. By the end of the 20th century scientists stopped using the term race, but instead refered to genetic clusters. Cavalli-Sforza identified four genetic clusers which correspond to four major regions of the world, that had become relatively genetically isolated from one another by deserts, mountains, or oceans.
Barbara Walters would make an excellent VP. She's a self-made woman so she brings the feminist vote. She's Jewish so she helps with the Jewish vote. She's white so she can help with the white vote. She's considered the hardest working woman in media so she can help with the hard working vote. She adopted her daughter so she helps with the adoption vote. She had a retarded, possibly autistic sister, so she helps with that vote, and autism is a big issue now. She's not young so she helps with the older vote. She's worshipped by the media (including Charlie Gibson) so she helps get good media coverage and fewer hit jobs. She helps with the gay male vote because she's a diva, and the gay female vote because she let Rosie cohost the View. She has decades of experience talking to heads of state and bringing about change for women. She's not a politician so she's part of Obama's message for change. She has a following of several million women who watch the View everyday, and plus Obama owes her big time since she's the one who inspired a teenaged Oprah to pursue a career in broadcasting; thus putting Barbara on the ticket would be a full-circle moment. Hillary fans owe her too, because without Walters paving the way for women of influence, Hillary would not have been able to run for president.
IQ tests are not supposed to measure what you know or learned in school, but rather your native innate intelligence. Studies of identical twins reared apart suggest that by late adulthood IQ is almost entirely genetic. There are some environmental effects (i.e. nutrition) but cultural factors like being raised in a rich educated home are now believed to have zero impact on IQ by late adulthood. There are some psychologists who argue that dropping out of school causes your IQ to drop dramatically, however one could argue that people may drop out of school because they were already genetically getting dumber (it just takes a few years for one's IQ scores to catch up with the current state of one's intelligence).
I recently read on Ramussen that if Hillary wants to be VP, there's no way Obama could turn her down because she has so many delegates. I do think Hillary could help energize the female vote, would appeal to older voters, voters who didn't have the opportunity to attend college, Hispanic voters, and voters of Jewish ancestry. My biggest problem with Hillary being VP is I'd be scared she'd deliberately sink the ticket so that she can run again in 2012, and that time be on top of the ticket. As Dick Morris points out, a ticket in 2012 would be worth having because will John McCain be in his mid seventies, (I also think the country will also be in bad shape and America will be even more eager to get the republicans out of office):
The SAT has gone through a lot of changes over the years. Before 1994 it was much more difficult. Only about 1 in a million people could score a perfect 1600. After 1994 only one person in several thousand could score a perfect 1600. As of 2006, the perfect score is 2400 or so, and the test is very different. What are your thoughts on the SAT? Is it a good way to select students for university.
Yesterday I did a poll on ethnicity and Obama/Clinton preference in the Daily Kos community. Obviously the poll was unscientific, the sample size was small, and it was especially small within all the ethnicities sampled. The results were as follows:
Among non-Hispanic Blacks and Afro-multiracial at Daily Kos, 91% prefer Obam to Clinton. Among non-Hispanic whites of mostly non-Jewish ancestry, 94% prefer Obama. Among people here of Jewish ancestry, 94% support Obama. Among Hispanics here, 100% support Obama. Among Arab ancestry people here, 0% prefer Obama (sample size in this group was only 1 person), among South Asian ancestry and East Asian ancestry people here, 100% prefer Obama. Based on this unscientific poll it seems that 16% of Daily Kos is Non-Hispanic Black/Afro-multiracial, 51% are non-Hispanic, non-Jewish white, 13% are Jewish, 6% Hispanic, 1% Arab, 2% South Asian, 2% East Asian, and 9% none of the above.
I thought it would be interesting to take a poll of ethnicity and candidate support here on Daily Kos. It will be interesting to see if ethnic politics on Daily Kos parallels ethnic politics seen in exit polls. Sorry this diary is not very long, but if I add much more to it, I'm afraid I may influence the results of the polls. I'm hoping the content for this diary will emerge in the comments, so please post your thoughts and reactions to incoming poll results. This poll will not only give insight into the voting preferences of Daily Kos (not much of a mystery) but also the ethnic demographics of Daily Kos.
My apologies for excluding Native Americans (the true founders of the continent). There was just not enough room for everyone, and it would have been difficult to word the poll given the overlap with Hispanics, and considering the small population, it would have been difficult to get meaningful poll results.
This is a completely open ended poll. I hope everyone recomends it because a poll as open ended as this one can not yield interesting results unless as many of you take it as possible.
Out of all the living people on Earth today, who are the top 10 worst people in the world and the 10 best people in the world?(rank each list in order)
I know this sounds silly but I really feel such a poll will reveal a lot about the Daily Kos community.
At the end of every year Gallup asks Americans to name the man or woman living today in any part of the world that they admire the most. The poll is completely open-ended, so being mentioned by even 1% of respondents is a huge achievement, since many people most admire a family member or friend. Almost always, the sitting president is the most admired man (this makes sense because you can’t get elected without having much of the country worship you, and it’s hard to push an agenda without broad public support).
The most admired woman is usually the first lady, or former first lady, showing the power of the presidency is so great it rubs off on his wife. Below the fold are the most admired men and women as of 2007. Note that the standard error of the poll is about 3 points, so Bush and Bill Clinton are statistically tied, as are Hillary and Oprah (Oprah beat Hillary among women, Hillary beat Oprah among men).
Every year Time magazine publishes a list of the 100 most influential people in the world, that gets released in May. The series began with the 100 most influential people of the 20th century, and since 2004 it has become an anual recognition of the 100 people who are most transforming the world.
Below the fold is a list of the people who have made the list most frequenty:
Recently a haunting question keeps coming up. If the Obama family lived in South Africa during Apartheid, would the family have been split up? South Africa's system of Appartheid was notorious for tearing families apart, so would Obama because he is 50% white have to live in the Coloured part of town while Michelle and their two daughters have to live in the black side of town.
Everytime I come to daily kos I see someone raving about the corporate pro-Bush media, yet everytime I watch the pro-Bush corportate media (i.e. Fox News) they're always ranting about how the Mainstream media is so liberal. For example Bill O'reilly & Anne Coulter have been complaining a lot about how the liberal media is going easy on Obama and how Hillary is being treated like a republican:
I’ve long had respect for Michael Moore and view him as arguably the most influential of the true progressives. While several brave and honorable Democrats warned against the war in Iraq (Al Gore, Barack Obama), Michael Moore had the courage to do a dramatic and shocking last minute anti-war protest on international TV show just 48 hours before the war began:
I just read in the paper this weekend that the only way Hillary can beat Obama is by capturing two thirds of the vote in the remaining contests. That means she would have to beat Obama (on average) by 30 points in the remaining contests, and she has a better chance of being abducted by UFOs than by accomplishing a comeback of such grand proportions. Her only hope of winning the nomination is to get the superdelegates to overrule the will of the people (a dictatorship not a democracy) and history shows that such an abuse of power would not only cause the party to implode, but may even cause riots.
