IRC may be primitive, but it gets the job done: A bunch of us are waiting for the third debate to begin, hanging out on in an IRC chat room,

I didn't watch the debate last night. Not sure if I will find the time to watch a tape, either. Instead, I caught Bruce Springsteen, Jackson Browne, John Fogerty and crew at the Meadowlands, a fundraiser for MoveOnPac and ACT.

The fact that Jon Stewart's blistering appearance on CNN's Crossfire has now been seen by hundreds of thousands of people on the Web (via Ifilm.com and bittorrent) has got bloggers, like Jeff Jarvis, talking about the "future of TV."

From Lessig's political "spam" message about the new p2p-politics site that is leveraging archive.org to provide an open source for political ads:

Dan Gillmor makes a nice counter-intuitive point in his San Jose Mercury News column today.

One out of four American adults have rated a product, service or person using online reputation systems, according to this new report from the Pew Internet & American Life Project. And that's not counting the under 18-year-olds!

E&P online edtor Jesse Oxfeld wrote a sensible analysis this week of a panel discussion called "Blog the Vote" sponsored by the Allentown Morning Call.

Advokit is an open-source grassroots-network voter-file campaign-management tool developed by veterans of the Dean primary campaign and available either as a hosted (ASP) service or as a stand-alone install.

Video Vote Vigil is asking for volunteer videographers to send them video of disturbances outside polling locations on Election Day. Jon Lebkowsky writes that they aren't quite set up to accept content yet, but volunteers who are willing to take their cameras to the polls can sign up now to be notified when registration and uploads are implemented.

I was disappointed by Personal Democracy Forum's article on The Daily Kos by Brian Reich.

Most of Brian's article is terrific. He explains the Kos site well and value-checks himself along the way, citing folks who disagree with (or moderate) the article's arguments. But...

First, this is only the second article PDF has run, and already we're going after a progressive site? Must the left always eat its own first? How about eating oppressive forces first and save our own for dessert?

Second, the two quotes that begin the article are vicious and unsourced. That's a bad combination. Even if they were sourced, who cares that Brian found a couple of people who hate Kos?

Third, of the two main charges the article levels against Kos, I thought it only substantiated one. Yes, Kos should be more transparent about who pays him money. That's a big deal and I think Kos is dead wrong about it. (Which reminds me: PDF is paying me a modest retainer for blogging on this site.) But the claim that "Kos is the boss of a new kind of political machine" is guilt by metaphor. The evidence is that his readers "hungrily devour his every post" and they "give money to the candidates he chooses." In other words, he has readers who sometimes take his recommendations. Does that make Howard Dean a political boss because people gave to the "Dean Dozen" candidates? The very same top-down control PDF accuses Kos of exercising is built into PDF, Salon, Slate, and every other online or offline magazine. It's called "editorial voice." As for the unsubstantiated parenthetical remark that "intimidation may play a role," I think the article ought to either substantiate it or skip it.