The Washington Note is far superior to any of the nominees for best blog. Let me repeat that; it's not superior; it's far superior! Most of the nominees for Best Blog are large, commerciably viable sites that aren't any smarter than your average cable TV channel. Daily Kos; that's MSNBC. Ben Smith-Politico; that's CNN. Huffington Post; that's a cross between the New York Post and the "E" channel (sorry Steve, I know you write for them). Hot Air; they're okay. Boing Boing; a great site.

But Andrew Sullivan? Sullivan is the dumbest, creepiest and most repulsive celebrity journalist in America. One of the reasons we had a second four year term for George Bush was because of Andrew Sullivan and his ilk. The only pundit in the United States who even approaches Sullivan in stupidity and moral turpitude is Maureen Dowd; but even Dowd is not as bad as Sullivan.

By the way, as a former fan of the New Republic, I blame Sullivan for ruining that publication too. And we all know why Marty Peretz gave him that job.

If I was selecting the winners for Best Blog, my votes would go to:

The Washington Note-Gold Medal
Daily Howler-Silver Medal
The Conscience of a Liberal (Krugman)-Bronze Medal
RGE Monitor (Nouriel Roubini)-First Runner-Up
James Fallows(at the Atlantic)-Second Runner-Up

congrats to have made it this far steve!

Um, No Quarter, Steve? Really?

I just noticed the post above mine (the first post if that changes
before I post), and I guess that diminishes this one. I think
knocking Sullivan like that is wrong, because he doesn't set out to
lie. You can disagree with him, but he's not knowingly lying. Larry
Johnson is a liar, full on and without shame.

Sorry - forgot to say Happy New Year!

Great work this year Steve. You deserve the acknowledgement.

TWN is the best blog. Hands down.

How Dkos which is nothing but a dem kindergarden site the Huffpo which is nothing but some kind of net national inquirer mag made the cut I will never understand.

Long ago, three days running, my comments on Huffington post were listed as "Reader's Favorite". I was banned, forthwith, and the "readers favorite" feature was removed. In fact, I remember posting here about the experience. It had to do with some doctor's commentary that was being censored by Huffington, and my (and a quite a few other reader's) dissent about the censorship, even though most of us opposed the doctor's viewpoints. Also, the readers seemed to enjoy, and agree with, my posts about this fucking coward Harry Reid, and how he bent over for Roberts over the Phase Two issue. I really think that that is why I was given the boot.

I have never gone back there again. I believe the site is no better than Fox, just with a slightly different agenda, from a different side of the aisle.

For me, the attractiveness of Steve's blog, (beyond the actual content of Steve's essays), is the small community of commentors, and his successful efforts to keep the comment section free of spam. The result is a cumbersome and irritating "CAPTCHA" feature, but it has proven to be worth it. I remember the long threads of spam that would appear here, far to often, before Steve instituted the CAPTCHA feature.

As a frequent commentor, I find it pleasant that few threads go over 100 posts, so it is quite easy to stay abreast of the "flow" of the topic, without have to wade through hundreds of posts consisting of little or no intellectual or emotional value. I assume that will change, as his site rises in popularity. The thread lengths are beginning to grow, and that is a sign of greater exposure and recognition. Because of that fact, the kind of even-handedness that Steve exhibited in posting Dr. Barghouthi's essay becomes even more impactive, and I really hope we see Steve continue with this kind of unbiased treatment of guest posting.

Steve seems to thrive on attention, and I really hope he doesn't become too big for his own britches. We will see.

Years ago I used to comment on "Talk Left" when it was new, but I got upbraided by the host(ess) for being somehow hard on Zionists, even though lot's of commenters were scratching their heads and didn't think I was at all out of line.

This was before the Iraq invasion, and there was this guy who dominated comments, and still shows up I think, (I think he must have made substantial $ donations because his idiocy was bemoaned by most) whose main schtick was to berate and discount any commenter because they hadn't been, he assumed, active duty military blah, blah, blah. He faded substantially as the dimensions of the Iraq debacle began to emerge.

I don't go back to TL very often, and never comment (truth be told I haven't been able to figure out their 'new' registration system which gives me mixed messages about being already registered, etc.) Actually, they became pretty much a partisan mill for Hillary, the counterpart to the TPM grinder it seemed. And I notice they didn't make the best "law blog" nomination though this is what first attracted me. Not that that alone means much since, scanning the list, each of us could wonder why a particular blog isn't included somewhere. I guess the word is fickle or something.

And then there were some great blogs and bloggers that enriched our lives and moved on for the time, or forever . . .

Let's just hope that "net neutrality", or net monoplozing and pricing practices, or government "oversight" (read surveillance and control) doesn't crush what seems to me like the best and growing innovation in participatory democracy to come along in a while . . .

Its only "participatory democracy" if our leaders react accordingly to our hieghtened levels of awareness, subsequent increasing anger, and demands for change. So far, I've seen no such reaction from these lyin' sacks of shit masquerading as "representatives". Greater access to truth and information is only gratifying on a personal level if in fact it does not lubricate the institution of social and political change. In a perfect world our leaders would realize that their covers have been pulled, and seek to present us with a more honest and representative form of governance. Instead, these fuckers seem to be inclined to attempt mass censorship, rein in the internet under the guise of fighting an imaginary terrorist foe, and consolidating the fourth estate into two or three state controlled, albiet covertly), corporate entities.

I agree with POA that the general size of the threads usually
makes it easy to "stay abreast of the "flow" of the topic".
Occasionally, however, when you have "controversial" subjects
(Gaza, Sarah Palin), you get a rush of newcomers that are both
biased and uninformed (a bad combination). These people
usually disappear after a couple of days, and we`re back to
normal.
The good thing is that those subjects also may attract
intelligent people that never would have discovered the blog if
they hadn`t found it accidentally by googling on the subject;
new and interesting people who continue to comment, because
they are interested in more than the sensational aspect of
whether it was Sarah Palin or her daughter that actually were
pregnant etc.

But if the comment section continues to grow to, say 250 or
300 comments a thread, I wonder if I would care to comment
much here - not due to arrogance or anything like that, but
because most of the interesting and relevant comments on a
thread would be hard to find.
Well, perhaps there was a hint of arrogance in that
explanation, but yeah, the more comments, the more banalities,
repetition, propaganda and uninformed crap.
Seems like there is a ideal size for such comment sections,
and I hope TWN stays more or less like now.
(And if I continue to comment here - who knows, after a
couple of years perhaps even my English will improve...)