We have so many insightful and powerful diaries written here at Daily Kos. Our diaries inform, inflame, impassion, and even entertain. We Kossacks have strong voices and an even stronger will to be the change we wish to see in this country.
One of the richest, and perhaps most under-appreciated, areas of thought come in the form of comments attached to these diaries.
Here at Top Comments we strive to recognize and promote the talent of this community by highlighting outstanding comments found throughout the day by the diarist, and through nominations at made at topcomments at gmail dot com by your fellow Kossacks.
These nominations are subjective, and certainly not complete (as no one can read the complete site on a daily basis!). But hopefully they will serve to shine a light where deserved, and to give the reader a good starting point in finding conversation on the site.
Please come in and make yourself at home! Join us beneath the fold...
I. First Comments
I've recently been inspired by a wonderful series of diaries by sardonyx, who has taken to chronicling the history of the site:
I love reading through the the old Moveable Type comments, and as I was doing so via one of the above-listed sardonyx diaries, I kept coming across oldies-but-goodies by some of my favorite commenters.
So I thought I would put together a diary about the first comments made by a variety of prominent Kossacks, past and present, as well as some other folks you might know from around the blogosphere. (Caveat: some of the Moveable Type comments appear to be missing, and moreover, if somebody made their first comment during the period when DKos briefly switched to Haloscan comments, that comment is, sadly, gone forever).
A. Guest Bloggers / Contributing Editors / Front-Pagers:
Steve Soto, September 30, 2002:
I think this whole thing screws up what was a grand plan from Karl Rove. I agree with Kos that Menendez would be a good pick, but not a certain pick I'm afraid, which is what the Dems need this year.
I wasn't a Bradley supporter in 2000, but this has fallen into his lap. And as I have said recently, he's in a no-win situation here if he declines.
Posted by Steve Soto at September 30, 2002 03:14 PM
Steve Gilliard, from the same thread as Steve Soto, October 1, 2002:
Forrester deserves this fix. He ran a campaign based on "The Torch is a crook", not what he would do for New Jersey.
This guy's views are opposite of the mainstream of the state's voters and he knows it. And if he whines, fine, McGreevey will pull the election and even if the Dems lose completely, unlikely, they would just make it clear that McGreevey would appoint (Menendez, Pallone, Andrews) if the Democratic slate won.
It's the Carnahan vote all over again.
Posted by sgilliard at October 1, 2002 09:22 AM
RonK, Seattle, October 17, 2002:
No intelligence failure here. Repeat: NO intelligence failure.
US intel knew about the weapons program. The shocker was North Korea's admission.
The BIG QUESTION: During the Iraq war powers debate, did anyone tell CONGRESS what US intel knew about the program?
Posted by RonK, Seattle at October 17, 2002 02:55 PM
billmon, November 5, 2002:
We know (or at least can reasonably assume) three things:
- The Republicans are bad mouthing the exit polls, according to Rich Lowry.
- The networks, which saw the GOP gaining in the final days, are bad mouthing the exit polls, according to Josh Marshall.
- Said exit polls APPEAR to be showing surprising Dem strength.
So either the exit polls really are screwed up (always a possibility) or this election isn't going according to the Media Whores' script, and the Dems are in for a good, maybe a very good night.
Like the journalistic hacks say: It remains to be seen.
Posted by billmon at November 5, 2002 02:21 PM
DavidNYC, from the same thread as billmon, November 5, 2002:
Anyone know of any good political chat rooms on the web/IRC/elsewhere? Our Campaigns is pretty quiet.
Posted by DavidNYC at November 5, 2002 02:23 PM
Meteor Blades, January 25, 2003:
Excellent points, IssuesGuy.
I don't think there is much doubt that Saddam is developing/has developed bio/chem weapons and would love to have some nukes. And this may probably makes him a threat to his neighbors and "U.S. interests," if not directly to U.S. territory.
But - how many times must it be said? - even if Saddam has a hoard of VX and Ebola somewhere in suburbs of Baghdad, we don't need a zillion-dollar war to "resolve" the situation. A war that apparently includes the (slight) possibility that U.S. nukes will be used for the first time in 58 years.
Instead of the shrieking John Wayneism that we've endured from Bushboy since last April, he could have started by making his pretty good speech at the U.N., another at NATO, and even as a guest speaker at the Arab League. Instead, from the get-go, it's been the hollow clop-clop-clop of chest-pounding backed up by lies, lies, lies. Now, his cojones are at stake and he may not feel able to back down, even with most of the world, half the Pentagon and a good portion of the public against war under the current circumstances.
Bushboy has boxed himself into a corner, where blinking isn't allowed for a "real man." And minions in the White House now say only traitors won't stand in the corner with him.
Posted by MeteorBlades at January 25, 2003 07:09 PM
B. Folks From Around Teh Blogosphere:
Jerome Armstrong (I think - posting as "mydd"), June 11, 2002:
I think Dean is a bit hungrier, but just by a tad. An interesting thing about Edwards, is that he can run for Pres, and because the primaries are so early, he can still run for Senator if he doesnt win the Pres nominaiton. Bowles has a shot to win, but its a bit uphill.
Posted by mydd.com at June 11, 2002 12:36 PM
Jeralynn Meritt (I think - posting as "TalkLeft"), June 29, 2002:
It was no problem changing the link to your site. We did it, and it's on the house.
You have really done a nice job with this site.
Posted by TalkLeft: The Politics of Crime at June 29, 2002 08:03 PM
skippy, July 24, 2002:
"Is there a treaty, any treaty the Bush Administration might support?"
the answer is, of course, "no," because the word "treaty," by definition implies cooperation, or at the very least, a mutual understanding, between two sovereign nations, ie, the united states and anybody else in the world.
Posted by skippy at July 24, 2002 03:48 PM
Demosthenes, August 4, 2002:
While it may be the party of the people, it's also (as you said) the party of the left... and DINOs who stymie every attempt at a leftist agenda only further empower the Greens as a choice for more left-wing voters. That, of course, means republican victories and lots of them.
It's also important to remember that many of the things you said define republicans aren't necessarily compatible- the focus on low taxes as one of the most important issues probably doesn't mean that much to the hard core social conservatives, but there's been a conscious effort made to insert that issue into every aspect of the Republican party.
That doesn't mean that Democrats couldn't do the same thing with, say, being against corporate corruption and for social justice, but it's something to keep in mind when someone thinks that the Republicans are so much more united. They're only united because they understand how important it is to be united. Would that the Democrats understood the same.
Posted by Demosthenes at August 4, 2002 11:57 AM
Matthew Yglesias, August 7, 2002:
Anyone else think there's something odd about the fact that the White House is using "he'll still have plenty of time to campaign" as a defense of the vacation. I'd say if the president needs some time off, he should cut back on his political work, not his governing.
Posted by Matthew Yglesias at August 7, 2002 11:56 AM
Patrick Nielsen Hayden, August 22, 2002:
Um, I suspect that in the body of your post, you typed "National Review" when you mean New Republic. It's a little hard to imagine Judis and Teixeira's book being excerpted in the National Review.
Posted by Patrick Nielsen Hayden at August 22, 2002 10:43 PM
Charles Kuffner, August 30, 2002:
Sorry, Kos, but you're dead wrong on this issue. I urge you to head over to the Baseball Prospectus and read a few articles in this section for a better understanding of baseball's economics.
Or, to toot my own horn, read some of my articles on baseball.
You have been fed a line by Bud Selig and a bunch of ignorant sportswriters. Don't swallow it.
Posted by Charles Kuffner at August 30, 2002 02:52 PM
Jesse (from Pandagon), September 1, 2002:
Taft is a terrible governor. Education has literally gone to pot since we got him in office, businesses are leaving, college graduates are leaving, everything's leaving, and hopefully he'll be next.
Ohio's Democratic party is a shadow of its former self, though, so this poll truly surprises me.
Posted by jesse at September 1, 2002 08:35 PM
julia (of Sisyphus Shrugged), September 2, 2002:
I'm glad someone else noticed - I spent [far too much time] looking for the Harris story yesterday and couldn't find it.
Posted by julia at September 2, 2002 03:23 AM
Atrios, September 3, 2002:
The only thing one can say about this is "well duhh!"
Posted by Atrios at September 3, 2002 09:11 AM
Max Sawicky, from the same thread as Atrios, September 3, 2002:
I'm only about 55-45 against term limits. The problem I see is the undeserved advantages of incumbency. If there was a good way to deal with that, term limits would be less relevant.
On the other hand, I've noticed that a term limited chief exec, such as a governor or mayor, has less need to guard against problems that might crop up after he/she is gone. Politicians have little enough foresight as it is. We've seen fiscal messes follow the departure from office of governors such as Dukakis (MA), Gilmore (VA), Whitman (NJ), and maybe our own Glendenning (MD).
Term limits in its original incarnation was clearly a device by the GOP to attack Dem control of the Congress. But it also has some genuine populist roots.
Posted by Max at September 3, 2002 12:06 PM
Mark Kleiman, September 12, 2002:
Amazing!
Is there a linkable source for this story?
Posted by Mark Kleiman at September 12, 2002 02:24 PM
Avedon, September 15, 2002:
Argh, you said "Democrat-leaning".
Posted by Avedon at September 15, 2002 04:52 AM
Hesiod, October 1, 2002:
I believe that Torch will eventually resign from the Senate, and Governor McGreevey will appoint Bob Menendez, and call a Special election for next year.
The GOP will then be in a bind. They will either have to challenge the decision in Court, accept it and run Forrester, or create an internecine battle between Forrester, and probably Christie Todd Whitman [the obvious GOP choice to run for the seat].
They are royally screwed.
Posted by Hesiod at October 1, 2002 06:11 AM
archpundit, October 10, 2002:
Other reports have said Racicot won't get in and so it looks like Baucus won't have any opposition. If Racicot got in he'd be very tough. He was the most popular politician in Montana. Fortunately, he seemed to be serious when he said he didn't want back in for a while.
That sounds like a pretty ugly ad. I'm disappointed in Baucus. It isn't like he really needed it.
Something about Taylor's announcement sounds hollow though. I hope he hasn't just been outed. It was an ugly tactic that would be even uglier for Baucus if there was something behind it. (last paragraph is just suspicious blather not to be taken too seriously)
Posted by archpundit at October 10, 2002 12:09 PM
John Cole, from the same thread as archpundit, October 10, 2002:
For those of you who think this ad had nothing to do with homosexuality, will you now admit that Willie Horton was really about Dukakis being soft on crime?
Yeah, I thought so.
Posted by John Cole at October 10, 2002 04:13 PM
digby, October 29, 2002:
"Consider, if Iraq is such an imminent menace, then why isn't he dealing with that problem full-time? Why is he on the campaign trail instead?"
His performance in Mexico over the week-end didn't help either. He behaved like a petulant little brat who was chomping at the bit to get back on the trail instead of talking with Asian allies about possible nuclear war. Evidently, when Putin had to cancel due to the hostage crisis, Junior stayed in his room rather than reschedule with Koizumi or Australia's Howard. It appeared as if he just doesn't give a shit about Korea or Bali or...anything but campaigning.
The public likely didn't notice, but the asian allies and the American punditocrisy did.
Posted by digby at October 29, 2002 09:58 AM
Tacitus, November 8, 2002:
AWD's suggestion is superior, but if you wanted to keep the original structure, then "responsibility FOR all" would have the same meaning and impart nice parallelism, too.
Posted by Tacitus at November 8, 2002 12:28 PM
Oliver Willis, November 19, 2002:
Al Sharpton is irrelevant. I'm all for Gore/Kerry but Wesley Clark intrigues me.
Posted by Oliver Willis at November 19, 2002 05:29 PM
tbogg, November 20, 2002:
I could be wrong about this...but it seems to me that Pitt, like Richard Perle, is a registered Democrat. After all, it's not like you have to take a test or anything to become a member. Look at Zell Miller....
Posted by tbogg at November 20, 2002 09:09 AM
Glenn Reynolds, November 23, 2002:
I'm very sorry for your loss. My wife and I have had several of these, and I don't think there are any words of comfort that really amount to much. But after the first couple of miscarriages, we had a wonderful daughter, and that makes it all worthwhile.
Please accept my sympathy, and best wishes for the future.
Posted by Glenn Reynolds at November 23, 2002 07:16 PM
Matt Stoller, December 11, 2002:
One thing that I suspect cannot be overemphasized is the arena from which this controversy sprang. That is, web logs.
If Lott is forced to resign, that will be a HUGE victory for the blogosphere in an institutional sense. The Republicans built their current and overwhelming structural advantage via the Gingrich revolution and the politics of personal destruction.
People are looking for the Democrats to build a similar institutional infrastructure, a 'Democratic Heritage Foundation', liberal media, and the like to compete with the GOP. However, the next political competitive advantage for the dominant party won't and never has looked like the previous one. Liberals just aren't as good at the politics of personal destruction, because the GOP has such a head start and such advantages in terms of fundraising. Perhaps web logs are an offsetting echo chamber that can dramatically accelerate and pressure the media to cover the pseudo-sinister intentions of the extreme right-wing. That's what happened here.
So are web logs really that effective as a tactic? I think so. They are immediate, intelligent, cheap, razor-sharp, and read and written by the same pundit class that sets the national political agenda. Maybe this is wishful thinking, but do remember that one of the first salvos of the new GOP tactical advantage was Gingrich's assault on Tip O'Neill, a powerful House Democrat. The first salvo in this new era is an assault on ... a powerful Senate Republican?
Posted by Matthew Stoller at December 11, 2002 01:56 PM
C. Other Kossacks:
Ga6thDem, October 11, 2002:
What I find interesting about this race is the fact that you have a woman running. I wonder if this will play a factor in the race. The Jessecrats probably will not be motivated to vote. It is unfortunate, but this is NC after all.
Posted by Ga6thDem at October 11, 2002 12:23 PM
fladem, October 14, 2002:
Reasons to hope for McBride:
- He has been badly outspent over the last few weeks, and hasn't dropped. The Bush strategy is essentially to drive up McBride's negs, since its hard to see how they can grow their own positives(see Calif for another example). This has risks in Fla., as McBride's Vietnam record provides some insulation. Bush went negative on McBride before the primary in hopes of running against Reno - and it backfired.
- Over the last 2 weeks, McBride will spend about the same as Bush.
- Bush's off the cuff remarks about his "devious" plans are among the dumbest remarks seen lately.
- Bush is an incumbent below 50. Trouble. Period.
- Undecided voters typically vote against the incumbent 2 or 3 to 1. What's undecided?
haven't heard - the sample (under 5%) is too small to get any statistical validity. If it’s in the panhandle, its good for Jeb, if its in the south (i.e. Broward and Palm) its good for McBride.
- The African American community is furious with Jeb (with good reason), and will turn out in big numbers.
Reasons Bush should feel good:
- He is the President's brother
- The constitutional amendment in Florida mandating class size reduction is very expensive - it can be attacked as Russert did, very easily. McBride is linked to the amendment.
- Some GOP analysts claim Florida polling under estimates GOP strength because it under estimates Hispanic voters in Miami Dade. This is demonstrably false (see polling versus results in the 2000 Senate race, egg), but they will repeat it.
- Idiots run the voting system here in Florida.
Bottom line, I give Jeb a slight edge. I simply can't believe we will beat Jeb less than 18 months after 9/11. Time is on the Dems side in Florida. We are kind of where California was in 1990. In six years this race is run easily. But not this year.
Posted by fladem at October 24, 2002 04:14 PM
Jon Meltzer, October 25, 2002:
Or his lips are not moving.
Posted by Jon Meltzer at October 25, 2002 05:41 PM
paradox, October 28, 2002:
Hey, the Albanians are with us! 95% of Americans could not find Albania on a map to save their lives, but hey, we're not alone! I hear those stalwart gatekeepers of American values--the Bulgarians--are with us too. Hooray for our team!
Posted by paradox at October 28, 2002 07:42 AM
Angry White Democrat, October 28, 2002:
I heard that the national party put some money into Pingree's campaign in Maine recently. Apparentely her numbers went up after she criticized Collins for her support of the Iraq war. Can anyone confirm or deny this?
Posted by Angry White Democrat at October 28, 2002 10:54 PM
Marie, November 11, 2002:
The optimism here is great and mathematically a Dem win works, but who is going to oust an incumbent that will retain his base, remain attractive to middle-aged white guys, controls the news cycle, has the media enthralled with him and will have the most money? It's looming as more like 1972 than 1992 to me.
Posted by Marie at November 11, 2002 03:20 PM
boilerman10, November 13, 2002:
Good morning. To Des, and the board:
the differences between R's and D's was more noticable in the area of court nominees.
This is where the longest lasting, and the next to the worst aspects of the legacy of Dubyaism will be. The worst part is the 1930's-esque negativism, rising up in these parts.
All over the place I hear this "no-message" buzz. But, thanks to conflicting stories, fear, and yes, clever political calculation, the electorate was left literally not knowing what to believe, or who to believe.
Put away the self flagellation. Stop with the insults to Tom Daschel and Terry McAuliffe. This does no good, and accomplishes nothing.
Sadly, until the flag-draped coffins come home, and the people awaken to find that somehow their communities are becoming impoverished, and their states having maybe 1 or 2 active cities, and the rest is like Appalachia during the early 1960's due to lack of work and opportunity, the nation will be unfocused, confused, and quite easily led(stampeded) from one "issue" to another. Remember, it is not the R's or D's that are confused, IT'S THE PEOPLE.....I'd add stupid, but that is becoming trite.
Have a good day,
Boilerman10
Posted by boilerman10 at November 13, 2002 12:14 AM
pontificator, December 7, 2002:
I think Landreiue will win. My knowledge bASDE is that in Louisiana, New orleans votes are counted lasty
Posted by pontifucateur at December 7, 2002 06:29 PM
OkieByAccident (at least under this username), January 16, 2003:
Skippy's post reminds me that I accidently chose a potentially confusing alias. So, the sooner I change it, the better... not that I'm likely to post all that much.
Posted by OkieByAccident (formerly Skip) at January 16, 2003 10:11 PM
Olds88, January 17, 2003:
I hope that nofundy and n94n are trolling freepers. Ridiculous racist comments like "yassa massa" certainly don't belong on a quality board like Kos.
Posted by Olds88 at January 17, 2003 08:53 AM
n69n, January 17, 2003:
BUSH™ supports a system of total infinite war, both in The Homeland™ & abroad.
The same pressure applied to Iraq will be applied to every American household.
Posted by n69n at January 17, 2003 02:46 PM
N in Seattle, January 31, 2003:
Another aspect of Dubya's minions hiding the reality of the economic state of the union is Congress's refusal to retroactively extend unemployment benefits for those whose benefits had run out before (I think it was) January 1, 2003.
The unemployment rate is calculated based on those who are "actively looking for work", which is in turn defined as "those receiving unemployment benefits". Remove those unfortunates whose benefits had already run out, and you magically reduce the number of the "unemployed", which magically reduces the official unemployment rate.
Unrealistic as it may be with respect to reality, when it comes to generating labor statistics, those who've been out of work too long are considered to have stopped looking.
Posted by N in Seattle at January 31, 2003 01:31 PM
II. Tonight's Top Comments
Via kath25:
eugene sums it up: the movement is what matters.
Via greenchiledem:
This comment about the early exit poll results from the Dems Abroad voting centers by Mogolori gave me a morning laugh.
Via Caoilainn:
This thread started by mistersite in response to Barry in MIA's diary Last Minute Smear Diary!!! is filled with hilarity.
Via Mewkey:
Nearly laughed myself silly at this one, from Hlinko.
Via madgranny:
A good comment by LynChi in a great diary.
Via earicicle:
Dagoril had this wonderful reaction to the
news that Glen Beck, like his beloved conservative
compatriot-in-wingnuttiness Ann Couleter, is also endorsing Hillary Clinton.
Via dconrad:
ActivistGuy managed to sum up Granny Doc's excellent diary with a comment that is as pithy as it is profound. This one could go in a book of quotations.
Top Mojo
Heh. No chance folks.