Seeing the progression of the campaign, I figured some of the readers here may be looking for a break from the silliness as of late.  

In the past, people have tried to introduce me various kinds of personality typing including Myers-Briggs and others.  None of those things seemed to really work all that well.  But, then I was introduced to another scheme of Enneagrams.  This system accounts for personality changes caused by stress and seems to work really well.  

My question here is if this type of personality typing can help figure out where someone might belong on the political scale.  What about the type of public service a person may be best suited for?  I’m curious if learning about your personality type reaffirms what you do or if it makes you think twice.

I just happened to clean out my inbox and came across this. I then pulled up Kos to read some of the discussion about it and did a search for Clinton.  To my surprise, nothing came up in the search.  If someone has already posted a diary on this, I appologize.  Otherwise, the mass e-mail from Senator Clinton is quoted below the fold.

It should be pretty obvious that its time to warm up the Kos media machine again.  Write your reps in Congress as well as letters to the editor to get this out.

Before the first of the year, I started up a blog using blogger.  The topic was possible reform for the Electoral College (http://electoralreform.blogspot.com).  It became quite clear that I wasn't willing to put enough time into it for it to be able to stand on its own.  Eventually, I lost interest and stopped working on it.  I thought I might post a diary or two from that site here on Kos and see if it got more interest that way.  If so, I'll make this into a series here.

The first post to the site with any real meat to it specifically looked at how alternative methods of electoral distribution woud affect Michigan in particular.

In the past, I've gone back and forth on the issue of faith-based charities when it comes to them getting federal assistance.  Now, I'm going back and forth about whether or not one of them, namely the Salvation Army, should get my assistance.  

I'm hoping to add some things to the discussion here. I'd like to see what could be learned from the experience to improve the way we handle the next one. I was told once that the difference between an average guy and a smart guy is that the average guy learns from his mistakes while the smart guy learns from other people's mistakes as well.

The one thing that has really impressed me about this site is how the community at large creates the compelling content that makes the site worth visiting.  Nothing against the folks who post things to the front page, but the reason to keep coming back is hidden in all of the comments and diaries that can be found under the surface.  

As in Kos, the compelling content that keeps readers coming back to the state blog should come from the community at large.  Below the fold I describe my vision of the perfect state blog based on the technology used on Kos.

A previous diary asked why Moderates read and post on this site.  I'm posting it as a diary here in the hopes that others might have some comments on my post.

Having just signed up for Kos last week, this is my first diary. I'm a bit of an outsider to Kos and to blogging in general. Bare with me if I'm a little off with the proper etiquette.

There is one thing that really jumped out at me when I started reading these pages. I was surprised how very few people actually sign posts and comments using their real names. I could understand this if we were talking about the latest Hollywood marriage or Brittany video, but we are discussing the most important issues of the day. National security, taxes, the economy, jobs, health care, the future of the Party, voting rights, the list goes on. So many people carefully write well thought-out and well-researched comments under names like "Sk8trDude," "Chick4Dean," and "RedStateB*tch." (I'm just making these up. If anyone really is using these names, it is totally coincidence.) It just doesn't make sense. Is it possible that these critical issues deserve better than this? I think so. Does using these "cutesy" names understate their importance? I tend to think that it does.