Thank you for clearing some of the fog of progressivity that Barack Obama's machine keeps pumping out, especially with regard to his militarism and his Wall Steet connections, which are comparable to Clinton's. His endorsement of Lieberman vs. Lamont in Connecticut in 2006 should be enough to counter any antiwar credentials he might claim. His Senate voting record, too, is solidly centrist and certainly no less "triangulating" than Clinton's.

However, one major difference that you overlooked how Obama, unique among the field, is dangerously ready to adopt Republican talking points that challenge fundamental--not leftist--Democratic Party hallmarks.

By evoking a "crisis" in Social Security--and, in the past, accepting the support of organizations that favor the privatization of social security--Obama may well have been testing the waters for a more radical re-making of this party than anyone could guess. While Clinton and Edwards have both done their share of crossing the aisle and compromising, one can't imagine either of them gesticulating toward this Republican goal or Social Security privatization.

A similar pattern appears in the healthcare debate. Rather than adjust his plan to include a mandate, or make a pragmatic argument that he didn't think a mandate would be politically viable, Obama adopted Republican talking points that seem to imply he thought any sort of mandatory insurance (even auto?) was wrong, missing the whole cost-control point of universality in insurance.

I find myself wondering what the very publicized breakfast with Bloomberg was all about. Given the trends, I wouldn't rule out Obama "pulling a Lieberman" if he fails to win the nomination and forming a ticket with the New York mayor. Two Wall Street darlings, unbeholden to either major party--is that the kind of independent ticket we've been wanting?

As compromising as Edwards and Clinton seem to the left, they are both solid Democrats when it comes to working for the party machine and maintaining the core, hard-won gains for which generations of Democrats have worked and fought. Obama is, among these three, the potential deconstructionist, but it appears more and more that it's specifically the Democratic establishment that he'd deconstruct, and his wind is unlikely to blow the falling edifice in a left-ward direction.

I've contributed to three campaigns (Kucinich, Edwards and Clinton), but increasingly I do see a difference with Obama that has kept me out of his contributor's list: he's perhaps the biggest danger to the Democratic Party, not because he might lose, but because he might just win.

Chris Corbell

Portland, OR

Katha Pollitt fails to address what is possibly the most pertinent question concerning the relationship between the Democratic presidential candidates and the status of the left in America: how will a Clinton/Obama/Edwards presidency affect the political landscape in America? Will any of these candidates open up new opportunities for the left?

Personally, I think that Obama has the best chance of shifting the political center of gravity in this country by transforming the terms of our national political discourse and by ushering in a significant electoral realignment. This possibility is not in and of itself particularly significant, but must be considered in relation to the broader balance of political forces in this country, and the related question of the opportunities and challenges facing the left in the next ten to twenty years.

I think that Obama could be the left's version of a Margaret Thatcher or Ronald Reagan--a political figure who helps us reclaim the mantle of the future and puts the right on the defensive for a decade or more to come. But this is simply my opinion--I'm sure Pollitt has her own opinions on these questions. It would have been nice to have read them, instead of reading a rather superficial discussion about policy proposals and branding.

Amanda Armstrong

Chicago, IL

What Pollitt's piece shows is something that most Americans, Democrats and other "liberals" included, have yet to realize: the close similarity between the top three Democratic candidates. People are quick to point out the differences between them and connect strongly. But as with the Edwards/Clinton health care issue, its all remarkably similar. Pollitt acknowledges it, and she still finds herself connecting with one of the big three.

If a journalist to one of the most liberal outlets in our country is acknowledging the similarity, and still has trouble getting away from Obama, Clinton or Edwards, is it any wonder that a large portion of American voters seem untouched by our voting, and political, processes?

Thank you for bringing up a much needed viewpoint.

Benjamin A. Fisher

San Diego, CA

Pollitt's written dithering is valid: the "frontrunning" candidates all manifest minor differences. The differences are so small that there is even overlap with Republican candidates: Hillary/Obama have produced health care "plans" largely similar to that already implemented by Mitt Romney, Republican. All three "frontrunners" refuse to even commit to having the US out of Iraq by 2013. None of the three will simply promise to not provoke or start a war with Iran. All three have questionable figures high in their campaign staff; Hillary, in particular, has not just Terence J. McAuliffe but also Mark Penn. All three of the "frontrunners" stand on positions broadly at odds with the Democrats' voter base. The higher the rating as "frontrunner," the farther into Republican territory each candidate has progressed.

What Pollitt fails to offer is a solution to this problem, the problem of the candidates being so similar, and being so close to Republicans. In fact, Pollitt even fails to identify this situation as a problem.

There is a way to deal with this problem. Refuse to vote for any of these candidates, in both the primary and if necessary general elections. Sooner or later the broad majority of Democrats and in some cases (e.g. ,Iraq) the broad majority of the public is going to have to have representation in a presidential election. The only way this can happen is if we take the step that Pollitt does not, and we accept that these candidates are a problem, and then, we refuse to support and vote for them under any circumstances. If we keep voting for the status quo, that is what we will get. Why this simple fact escapes so many is beyond comprehension.

Seymour Friendly

Seattle, WA

Pollitt's analysis is helpful if you are only considering the top three Democrats. Personally, rather than gathering political opinions from the news, spending a few days watching C-SPAN could quickly change your Democratic vote. I say Joe Biden for President and John Edwards for Vice President would promote the best balance of progressive politics and practical agenda that America needs.

It's time America made an informed decision, carefully looking at every candidate's policies and positions. Senator Biden recognizes that America needs to fix its global image as a first step to all the other military and economic issues facing us. We need to find our friends and calm things down a little.

Our next vote could change the world, just like the last two. Isn't it time we really thought things through?

Patricia Popovitch

Glenrock, WY

Thank you, Katha Pollitt, for writing the words down. You would think from major media outlets that there are only three Dem candidates, and I agree they're pretty much the same.

Those keenly interested in health care, for instance, direly need to realize that only Kucinich's specific plan, which supports a specific HR Bill, is what most Americans want. Middle class should look at Romney's universal health care and realize you no longer have a choice, you must have health care--and oh, by the way, if the price you are told you must pay is unaffordable, and you don't purchase it, you will be taxed thousands of dollars! Hello! And Obama, Clinton, Edwards all have similar plans. That got me looking at a few other plans of Kucinich, and I realized he has more workable solutions on majority of issues important to me and most Americans.

Corporations own major media. For those like myself who conclude corporate lobbyists run this country, those others who rely on major media to tell them whom to vote for... well, I just hope they stay home on Election Day.

It is not easy or simple choosing candidates these days. I think the last eight years have woken up even the most comatose or brainwashed voter. But voting is a responsibility and many I know agree this is one of the most important elections in our history. So take the same amount of time, effort and clear logical study that you would in selecting a car.

C. J. McGee

St Petersburg, FL

All three have left everything on the table for Iran. All three say 2013 for withdrawal from Iraq. Obama and Clinton want a bigger military, Edwards hasn't decided, but he will too, most probably.

We are seeing the Democratic side of The War Party. The Military Industrial Complex is pulling the strings.

Wall Street will want more "Disaster Capitalism" to further enrich themselves from the spoils of "Free Trade."

The new Neolibs will create a new Health Care Complex by ensconcing corporations into what should be a single payer system.

What we are seeing is a kinder, gentler War Party whose social engineering will become a new era of corporate welfare in the Health Care Complex.

Michael McKinlay

Hercules, CA