Those of us that are here casually, as citizens, know that you folks that word things to death are part of something other than your own thoughts. We learn a lot. But if some folks don't I.D. themselves you have to weigh the comments in that light.

My grandfather was a prosecutor who put gangsters in jail during Prohibition, a state AG in Michigan after being part of a group of WWI veterans who broke the county party machine (back in the days before primaries, the machine had been drawing the names of delegates out of a hat, feeding them dinner and paying their train tickets to the state convention in return for buying their votes at the nominating convention), a state Supreme Court Justice who left the court to run for Gov. (Gee, does that sound like Ted Kulongoski at all?).

In 1968, I was a Eugene McCarthy college student first able to vote in 1968--back when voting age was 21.

I still have the thank you note for going door to door for Tom McCall's re-election, volunteered on my first legislative campaign in 1976, voted for John B. Anderson in 1980.

All wisdom does not reside in one political party, and I have friends across the political spectrum. Most of them live outside the Portland metropolitan area.

I have been a Dem. national convention delegate after being a local volunteer coordinator for a presidential campaign; a member of State Central Comm. as well as other party activities; and worked on numerous campaigns at all levels, always as a volunteer (never paid). My work experience includes retail sales, working with children (child care, substitute teaching, working in an assistant capacity) among other things. I am well aware that employers contemplating hiring someone can use a search engine to read every post made under one's real name.

If I were required to use my real name, I wouldn't comment on blogs but rather just read them and send links and quotes to friends.

My friends and people I meet in person know who I am, but there is no reason total strangers online need to know that information.

I notice that some of the strongest comments come not from people who use their full names (like Jenni) but those who use screen names or first names.

There are times when BO is very informative and useful.

However, there are people here whose point of view is that they have the right to tell us what to believe. I don't see what that helps.

My guess is that more minds are changed when people who know each other use something here as a jumping off point for conversation than when bloggers argue with each other online. Esp. when someone who blogs repeats what someone who doesn't blog said to them, and the response is "well, why should we believe that person exists if they don't post their own comments?". Such hostility does no one any good, even if the person posting such a comment gives their full first, middle, and last names.

Of course anonymous and pseudonymous postings are okay. The Founding Fathers wrote the Federalist Papers under pseudonyms, and the anti-Federalists argued against them the same way. It forces the reader to judge arguments on the merits and to think critically about the self-interests of the authors.

If readers aren't smart enough to sniff out trolls and snipers from among the anonymous postings, then the cure is to help them be wiser, not to lower the discourse to the intellectual level of the dimmest person in the room.

"this is politics, the life and soul of our public life "

And there are those of us who are active in politics but also have a side of their lives which has no connection to politics. I do not know the political affiliation of anyone I work with, nor have I known that in most of the sales and education jobs I've had. My guess is that lots of voters feel the same way---and may not want to get into political discussions at work.

I realize this may be a shock to some people here, but there's a whole wide world out there (esp. downstate from the Portland area) where politics is very low on the radar screen and not everyone wants every statement they blog about politics to be available online for years to come.

There is a great "In the news" Oct. 2005 post about Jim Hill running for Gov. For those deciding how to vote for Sec. of State, you might want to read Rick Metsger's comment. Very interesting.

BUT, if Obama wins Oregon, this exchange will look very different now:

Posted by: Mac Diva | Oct 15, 2005 11:15:15 PM

Hill must be hallucinating. He might, if the white liberals are being less hypocritical than usual on election day, win a seat on a city council. But, there is no way he will be elected to state office in a state with as racist as Oregon.

Posted by: MAG | Oct 16, 2005 11:40:41 AM

Dear Mac, Check the facts: The thinking that a white dominated Oregon would elect an African American to statewide office has been a source of discussion before, unfortunately. But the facts show an entirely different scenario. In the 1980's, Jim ran in a white republican dominated South Salem for state rep and then the Senate. He won. Then he ran for State wide office as State Treasurer. Guess what - He won. Not once but twice.

Granted the Governorship is different than Treasurer, but let's not sell Oregonians short.

`````````

Would it really add a lot to the conversation if we had the full names of both those people?

And should people who don't want their thoughts from years ago still be posted on blogs just not comment? Wouldn't that narrow the scope of discussion here?

"We'll protect the rights of people to post completely anonymously, while rewarding (somewhat) people who are willing to use the same handle all the time and rewarding (a lot) people who are willing to use their real names."

Thank you Kari. As someone who likes to keep my political life separated from my work life (often non-political jobs where I might not want to discuss politics), and as someone who has always used the same screen name (my initials), I appreciate that.

Not being a public figure, never intending to run for office, I have no interest in posting a column. I appreciate what you are planning.

LT-

Thanks for the suggestion about the Metsger link from 2005. Now looking back, his comments were not only true for that cycle but actually some of our current candidates should be taking that advise, when looking at all the attacks that don't help the Democratic cause.

Here is what Metsger said:

"Personally, I am glad to see Jim is considering the race. His entrance is no surprise as many of us had heard of his feeling out the race as early as last spring while we were in session. Jim would certainly contribute to the debate. I will be making my own decision shortly, as I told Sen. Brown and my Senate colleagues that I planned to have a decision by the first of November. Sen. Brown told the caucus that she has a potential candidate for my seat she believes can win my district so that is helpful in my own decision making process. As for Jim, those who have discussed his fundraising abilities are accurate. Jim through his Treasurer ties had connections on Wall Street that probably will continue to serve him. All of us considering running know how daunting that money aspect is for a race like this. My good friend and colleague Sen. Walker and I certainly don't have Wall Street to back us but that doesn't mean hard work and a sound message can't generate the support needed. This is where we as democrats must really look inside ourselves. As Governor Kitzhaber pointed out so well in Sunriver last week, we need to address the issues that Oregonians really care about and have a plan of action that is credible and resonates with our citizens. All the money in the world won't push any of us past that hurdle. I remember Jim Hill standing up strongly for some issues in the 2002 primary but still garnered only about 1 out of 5 democratic votes in key Multnomah County ( I believe it was about 22.6% give or take a hair.) Whoever turns out to be our nominee must not only energize the base with a credible message but also must be able to generate enough support from R's and I's to win in November. That is the challenge we all face, including Governor Kulongoski. Still, I believe we as democrats are best when we participate in that process and challenge each other thoughtfully and respectfully. This is in sharp contrast to many on the other side who practice the art of personal attacks to advance themselves when confronted with competition. I believe our nominee will be a better candidate and a better governor because of that debate. Jim would contribute well to that discussion. I respect him as I do the others considering this run. As Governor Kitzhaber said, this should not be just about winning elections( which is important naturally) but winning elections should be based on winning ideas. Anointing a candidate in a primary without challenges from within the party weakens that discussion, weakens consideration of new ideas and leads to a risk avoidance strategy for election. That, in the end, weakens the ability to govern. As a potential candidate for governor I welcome Jim to the table and any others who, like me, are tired of traveling without a road without a clearly defined destination. It is time we stopped lamenting the loss of the 'good ol days' and looked ahead to the bright future Oregon has ahead of it. That future however will only be bright if good men and women will aggregate their energy to make it so. We can do it as Oregonians and democrats should lead the way."

Um... of course anonymous postings are OK and they should be OK even for campaign staffers, volunteers, consultants and interns. What does revelation of a connection mean? Does it devalue the position stated in the post? Someone above said that we should know if people have a vested interest: Newsflash, we all have a vested interest in the outcome of every campaign.

Someone mentioned the Federalist Papers, although almost everyone knew who the authors were at the time, the ability use alternate identities is a way to trump the state's authority to impose and identity on you. In other words, the obsession with knowing if my name is John Smith and I am the John Smith residing at 2427 NE Ass Street SS#666-66-6666 is means for the state to control us by linking our personal identity to our financial identity to our religious identity etc, etc.

Besides, I know several of the posters here are either in the employ of a campaign or volunteers for a campaign and it is clear that no one is betraying confidences. Are they trolling, well maybe (I mean how can you repeat the same tag line over and over again when your aspersions have been totally refuted, without being a troll?), so don't feed the trolls its your choice.

And... so far the pseudonyms have not revealed even fairly major events this season that have taken place in off the record settings. Even those which might be damaging to the opposition.

I have a professional life that involves work with staunch republicans and equally staunch democrats and such folks tend to believe that personal POV gets in the way of professional POV whether it does or not.

There IS a reason some people might want to keep their politics off the table in their dealings with their clients and the public, and post anonymously. Or maybe a worker might not want his boss to know his political opinions. If you think workers don't sometimes get "punished" for their beliefs, dream on. Why do you think companies often post ambiguously stated "core values" in their policy manuals? "Get on board, or get out." My clients are mostly down to earth and liberal, like me. It comes out right away when I speak with them. But not all of them are liberal, or Democrats, and some of them wield their wealth as though it were a right of entitlement. But I have a fiduciary duty to all of them. Therefore I keep my political opinions to myself in my dealings with them. It's not professional to do otherwise.

OTOH....political staffers can turn into trolls when they post anonymously. Some would say, in the interest of a neutral stance, that perhaps some bloggers should recuse themselves from a discussion of candidates they represent at some level. But blog sites are NOT neutral....they are high tech op/ed sites, and anyone reading them should take it all in with a grain of salt, and get over themselves.

And I also think that if all candidates & bloggers & commenters would conduct themselves with an eye to straight talk & higher standards....and restrain the tendency to sling twisted truths and plain ol mud at their opponents, we would not need to raise the question of who has the right to blog and how.

I like to just use my first name, because I figure people who know me will probably recognize my voice and people who don't know me won't find me all that interesting anyway.

The only thing that matters if a person is with a campaign is that their statements are probably biased towards the person they're working for. But. Aren't we all biased towards the people we like whether they pay us to or not? No offense meant to any commenters on BlueOregon, but even if I recognize your name, I'm going to assume you have an axe to grind and possibly ignore it unless the content of your comment/post/blog etc is somehow enlightening, interesting, or validating to me. I believe having your name may improve the value of your discourse (if I know you know what you're talking about, I might listen to you harder) but if I don't know you or you're anonymous, you could be in the pocket of the worst candidate ever, or just some guy on the street and I'm going to ignore you about the same amount.

It seems different if the campaign recruits a bunch of people (or a bunch of their staffers) to respond to change what looks like the blogosphere's perspective on a post, but we're all seasoned blog readers and commenters on the internet. Do you really believe the world is reflected by the opinions expressed in comments on blogs?

It seems to me that at least some of the people who want everyone to be not-anonymous just want gotcha-moments some time in the future. That's just mean. Let people have their ideas, say their piece, judge their piece on its merits and then move on. Some of us may have ambitions later in life we didn't know we had and don't especially want to be judged on what we said when we were 17. Think of the things you said when you were 17. Aren't you glad no one was recording them?

T.A. Barnhart,

In defense of "LT's" anonymity.

What if this person is an officer in the military? Life for an officer (who happens to be a Democrat) in the military is made a lot easier if politics are never discussed and that the men ahead of him/her in the chain of command can assume what they'd like about his/her political affiliations. They spend a large amount of time, in a world that's pretty strongly conservative, among people who frequently look at opposition to the war as a person insult, and in isolation. If I was the only D in my company, I'd like to be anonymous too.

What if this person works in one of those so-called evil corporations? Does he or she want the boss to know about the post that decried their environmental practices?

There are lots of good reasons to want anonymity. I think we let people choose their own.

"And I also think that if all candidates & bloggers & commenters would conduct themselves with an eye to straight talk & higher standards....and restrain the tendency to sling twisted truths and plain ol mud at their opponents, we would not need to raise the question of who has the right to blog and how."

That, of course, is the problem. If only all would...but my impression is that there's been a gradual but steady increase in vitriol, ridicule, and personal attacks on BO, almost always (if not always) under cover of anonymity. The result is a detiorating level of dialog that is to this observer disheartening.

If all those who hide their comments behind psuedonyms presented offerings comparable to the Federalist Papers I'm sure the question would not even be raised. Unfortunately this is not the case.

It would also be useful if we become more willing to allow people to learn and to grow -- and thereby not to hang them for opinions once expressed but no longer held. I can remember making what then seemed rational arguments for positions 180 degrees from what I now believe. "Flip flop," or enlightenment?

I think a blog where folks had to identify themselves might be less spicy, but more productive; maybe a BO3?

after watching what Merkley and his net consultants have done to Novick for blogging under his actual name, why would anybody be so bold to contribute to the exchange of ideas on the blogs under full attribution?