Here once more from the Department of Unpopular Suggestions:
I don't know if this was ever discussed on DKos during the 2004 primary season. I don't recall if it was discussed during the 2006 campaign. But I've gotten to the point where I am reacting really badly to diaries from people supporting actual or potential Presidential candidates.
In many cases, I like the people. I like what they usually have to say. But I don't like having to be wary because I don't know whether they are acting on a candidate's behalf, whether they are acting as part of a coordinated unaffiliated campaign, or even short of that whether they are simply viewing things through a lens that may lead them to be overly harsh towards competitors and overly forgiving to their own candidate. I don't like having to, so to speak, keep one hand on my wallet when I read a diary.
One possible voluntary solution is below.
I would like it if we had a page on DKosopedia where people could "register" as being affiliated with a particular candidate.
I would envision three levels of registration: (1) official campaign representative (usually but not necessarily paid), (2) activist on behalf of a candidate, and (3) supporter of a candidate. I don't care that much whether people in the third category register or not -- though they should want to, as the more people who register their support for a given candidate, the better that candidate is doing -- but I do care about the first two. I want to know if I'm reading someone's heartfelt thoughts, someone's objective thoughts, or something the isn't one or the other.
This would have to be a voluntary program; of course no one is going to force anyone to do anything. But to me, being able to refer to such a page and decide how to interpret a diary or comment -- not necessarily to discount it, but to place it in a partisan context -- would be helpful.
I can feel the steam rising from those who will disagree already, so please do offer your comments and criticism.