I am very thankful for Mr. Barack Obama. I am an African-American woman and this is the first election I will be voting in. I am a firm believer in God, and though Mr. Obama and I differ in our faiths, I can't help but say that God has a hand in this. I was so upset when I heard some idiots killed a black bear and wrapped it in Obama posters. That was an indirect threat to him and they should be ashamed. Are they going to get any time or a fine?

Everyone wants to give McCain a pat on his back because he was a POW. Well, that is all well and good, we know he defended our country at some point--but if he does not give the people in the middle and lower classes a hand, doesn't he know that upper class will fall also!? I just happened to be one of the many Americans who did not have a silver spoon in my mouth upon my birth. What about those in the service industry? The housekeepers, gardeners,cashiers and so on who are trying to feed a family? Where do they turn? What happens to them when they can't rely on the food pantry to give out enough rations for them to survive, even with the added money from their paychecks? Where do they go? What about when they are sick and hurt, and can't afford to go to the hospital? What then?

Also why, if he does, would he support these other issues like gay marriages? When they passed the rights for lesbians and gays to legally marry, it felt like the world was coming to an end.We are indeed living in perilous times. Where in the Bible do you ever remember reading men joined together in a marital format? You won't! The Bible has remained true over the course of time and will be the rock this world will pray it can lean on in the end times. God has not changed His Word and He will not change! Nor will He change his Holy Word! It is us who must fall in line! So if it takes what some of you see as a threat to fix what Bush tore down, give Obama the hammer and nails!

Jessica Jemelle Boyd

Forrest City, AR

Everything is embedded in a context. Therefore, it is useful to examine what has happened in previous instances of The Nation announcing unconditional support for Democratic nominees, no matter how anti-progressive the candidates' positions may be.

Has throwing away the left's only card gained anything from Democrats? On the other hand, have the Democrats continued to shift to the right, even dragging antiwar people and images off of their convention floor? Which one?

The Nation's readers and editors should find common cause with the peace protesters in the "free speech" cages away from the convention; there is no evidence to suggest that Democratic power-brokers will tolerate anything from the left except quiet obedience.

At some point, evidence must matter. The wishful thinking that informs your open letter is just embarrassing. It's also how the Dems shift continually to the right with impunity.

Clark Iverson

Royal Oak, MI

While vacationing in Hawaii recently, the Democratic presumptive nominee, Barack Obama, called for a stand from the united international community to put an end to Russian aggression towards the sovereign nation of Georgia. This began with the calling for a cease-fire resolution to be enacted and enforced by the United Nations--a position McCain held first. With bilateral support from both nominees, why is this a controversial claim by Obama?

Back in 2002, Obama, a state senator at the time, did not support the US invasion of Iraq but decided against calling for a resolution from the UN to stop the act. Obama draws a metaphor between both invasions: "We've got to send a clear message to Russia and unify our allies. They can't charge into other countries. Of course it helps if we are leading by example on that point." So why call for a resolution against Russia and not against the US when in both cases Obama did not support the invasions?

Maybe he didn't support a UN resolution against Iraq because if the war turned out to be favorable, the issue could be played against him in a future presidential race in an anti-patriotic slant (in that he'd be calling on an outside community to put the US in check). Maybe he was somehow against the US invasion but did not want it to be stopped so he could be shown in a more favorable and contrasting light compared to his future opponents (this option automatically fails due to the fact that the US has veto power and would simply have overturned the decision). Or maybe he jumped on the issue only after McCain called for the same resolution so as not to appear inferior to his foreign policy experienced opponent. Either way, the fact that Obama has made this decision now and not in the past should call our attention to a political game of grandstanding and disingenuousness that Obama's Change We Can Believe In campaign was supposed to be devoid of.

Matt Cucchiaro

Danville, CA

A spirit of change has taken root among Americans and Obama has become the embodiment of that spirit. Because of this we find The Nation's open letter to Obama to be of pivotal importance in its raising of concerns about his campaign. However, asserting our voice is not enough to turn his rhetoric of change into real change. More must be done to heal our democracy; more must be done to move forward with the potential of this historic moment.

The Nation makes note of the movement of "everyday people" that Obama has built. Their support is vital to the success of his campaign. We must not forget, however, that in the aftermath of the elections, Obama's ability to effect change remains dependent on the power built by his supporters. Moreover, the level of real change will be measured in the degree to which this power becomes independent of Obama, the degree to which a true social movement is built. As you note, "Only a grassroots base as broad and as energized as the one that is behind [Obama] can counteract the forces of money and established power that are a dead weight on those seeking real change in American politics".

Central to this is the stand taken by The Nation in establishing national social priorities for an Obama administration. Making such commitments explicit now will facilitate the transition from the rhetoric of change to real change in our democracy. However, for too long the American people have not decided the direction of their country. This movement must be one that fosters real dialogue between the people and their government, something that has been lacking from our democracy for a long time.

It is not enough for such a base to demand change from Obama, or from anyone else. It is not enough to react—to support or challenge his stands on issues as they are presented to us. In the continual struggle for progress we must not chase the opportunities established power concedes; rather, it is vital that we make them for ourselves. Only then can the potential of our moment be realized.

More than bring people back to the political system, we must give them ownership, give them power that is independent of charismatic leadership. We must bring politics back to the people and the people back into politics. More than demanding change from our government, we must inspire people to work for that change. More than building a movement to elect a man, we must build a movement to hold him accountable. More than having the nation's priorities be ones that matter we must allow the people to determine what their priorities are. More than a multitude of alienated and fragmented groups fighting disjointedly for the same goals of progress, we must have effective coordinated action. And more than cure a broken electoral system, we must heal an ailing democracy. These are the opportunities that Obama doesn't create--they are for we the people to create.

In the name of these pivotal steps forward we would like to introduce the Hundred Days Campaign, a coalition of students and progressive groups who are committed to taking hold of our political moment. During the first hundred days of the next Administration the coalition will organize nationwide action to ensure people do not leave politics after the votes are counted and that our social priorities must be the nation's priorities, whether it is in Washington or in our hometowns. We invite you to join the effort and help cure our democracy.

RACHEL HAUT, LUIS BRENNEN, PRERNA NADATHUR, LAURIE ROJAS, JON BE
Students for a Democratic Society

New York, Chicago, Los Angeles, Detroit and Washington, DC, USA

I was excited by the principles articulated there, so I signed the open letter. Now I regret it. Having read the web letters, I see it as a tactical error. Our job, as so many letters insisted, is to stop the divisiveness and just get him elected. All those principles become nothing but warm vapor if John McCain wins.

Donna Boyle

San Diego, CA

Any lamebrain coward can sign a fawning, vacuously deluded plea. What the left needs to deliver to Obama is a stern reminder that war is not in our best interests, and that means any war--"good wars" only exist in the brutally co-opted imaginations of committed American imperialists. Distorting the reality of Obama's record and campaign platform to serve the collective hopes of the signatories, and then having The Nation print such an insulting demonstration of political chicanery, shows just how pathetic and spineless most of the so-called left really is. Why not inform Obama that if US troops are not out of Iraq and Afghanistan, if the NED and other CIA fronts are not out of Venezuela, Colombia and numerous other nations by March 1, 2009, then we're going to shut America down? Why not let Obama know that we'll foment revolution right here on our streets, and let's see if he thinks that would be a "good war" to fight? Why not tell him if he doesn't change his tune immediately, we'll all vote for McCain just to facilitate the blood-letting that clearly needs to happen when the so-called "change" is nothing more than dried-out tripe!

Peter J. Warner

Fort Bragg, CA

I think it’s cute that you guys think you can influence Obama to support progressive causes by writing him this open letter. You’re assuming he was progressive to begin with. HA! Somebody hasn’t looked at BO’s Illinois and US Senate voting records lately.

Gillian Rosheuvel

Chicago, IL

Reading the web letters in response to this open letter is an object lesson in just how fractured and schismatic the American left is these days. (As is the right, let me stipulate; while most of us can only look at it from the outside with puzzlement, it is clearly deeply divided over whether and why to support McCain and what to expect from him.)

On the one hand, we have a contingent arguing that Obama is obviously a sold-out right-wing corporatist, and to ask him for anything at all is shamefully obsequious and futile. On the other hand, we have a contingent arguing that Obama is our last best hope, and that to say anything that could be construed at criticism at this point is just playing into the hands of the right.

What amazes me is how few respondents stake out any position between these two--especially bizarre, given that nearly 30,000 people so far have signed the open letter, and thus presumably support it.

We're living in strange political times; many of the old political verities and the alliances that coalesced around them no longer seem reliable. This makes "change" of some sort pretty much inevitable, albeit unpredictable, and at least opens the door to grassroots efforts to make that change progressive and productive. But, of course, there are no guarantees.

Along these lines, I think this letter is reasonable, prudent and principled. What it expresses captures many of my own sentiments. On the one hand, I've been disappointed by some of Obama's recent statements, particularly his inexcusable vote on the FISA bill, which greatly dimmed my early enthusiasm for him. On the other hand, I still recognize that he is by far the best viable candidate in this race (even if only as the "lesser evil"), and moreover as the head of the ticket can help sweep many genuine progressives into Congressional seats.

If we wait around for a candidate who agrees with us on everything--well, that'll happen just after we all agree among ourselves, which is to say never. If we simply keep our mouths shut and vote on blind faith, we're hoping for a candidate who can read our minds, and that's not realistic either.

This open letter strikes a perfectly rational middle ground--it tells the candidate what he's said and done that we like, and what he's said and done that we don't like, in a way that's honest and forthright. It doesn't get caught up in trying to second- or third-guess his strategy, or that of the Republicans, or to divine anyone's secret agenda, or to foretell the future (either hopeful or doom-laden). It's just a straightforward expression of policy priorities, in the best tradition of open, public American democracy. I see absolutely nothing wrong with that, and that's why I signed.

Chris Miller

Chicago, IL

You guys just don't get it, do you?? If Obama doesn't get elected, he can't change anything.

Moving to the center for the general after winning the primary is basic Political Science 101. I can't believe how naïve a lot of us here are. This letter is a perfect example of that.

And while you are at it, you'd better get used to compromise, that's the name of the game in successful administrations. That means you will not get everything you want, but you may at least get what you need...

Leeroy Perkins

Tacoma, WA

Your open letter to Senator Obama seems like a desperate attempt to make Obama something he is not, and never can or will be. Unfortunately, the only way a black man in the country can advance within conventional circles as far as Obama has is compromise on really important issues. Furthermore, in my opinion, the only reason he is the presumptive Democratic nominee for President is that the powers to be do not think this black man will not threaten white supremacy and transnational control of our government.

Finally, I am really concerned about your definition of "cautious and centrist stance," as outlined in the letter. Obama's vote to support the recent FISA legislation cannot be labled as centrist, it is exactly what the Bush Administration wanted. Obama's speech to AIPAC cannot conceivably be considered centrist--he sounded like the rest of the neocon hawks walking the halls of the White House and Pentagon. His blaming black fathers for the problems in African-American society is simplistic and does not represent progressive thinking. Siding with the Bush Supreme Court on gun control and the death penalty cannot be considered centrist. His desire to continue with the Bush faith-based initiatives can only foster governmental theocracy--it is not centrist. Etc., etc., etc.

Obama has flopped on so many issues that it sickens me that we again are left with two choices that are not appealing.

I look to The Nation to provide the American people with real progressive (not regressive) leadership on important issues. You can begin again by calling Obama to the carpet, rather than giving him a slap on the wrist.

Gordon Alderink

Coopersville, MI

The signatories to this letter are an impressive list of writers and intellectuals, a number of whom are respected tremendously as voices of conscience. But this letter, and its whole logic and method, is very bad. Whatever their intent, those who put their names on it are wielding their influence to get people to join them in a deadly exercise in self-delusion.

Take this letter’s description of Obama’s positions as “cautious and centrist.” What exactly is “cautious and centrist” about voting for Bush’s FISA law sanctioning massive domestic wire-tapping and retroactively protecting those who violated the rights of millions to privacy? What is “cautious and centrist” about giving a bloodthirsty speech to AIPAC (American Israel Public Affairs Committee) that essentially writes Israel a blank check and threatens Iran with war? What is “cautious and centrist” about blaming black fathers, in his infamous Father’s Day speech, for the way this system has written off a whole generation of youth, unable and unwilling to provide jobs or decent education or any kind of future at all, and instead funneling 1 in 9 black men into jail?! What is “cautious and centrist” about getting to the right of George Bush’s Supreme Court and arguing for even wider use of the death penalty? What is “cautious and centrist” about promising to expand Bush’s faith-based initiatives?!

It is essential to speak honestly and accurately about all this. Only by confronting reality as it actually is can we determine how it can be transformed in ways that are both possible and desirable. Conversely, if we insist on deceiving ourselves--and worse yet, deceiving others--then we will continue to find ourselves standing by in impotent frustration as this country continues on its bloody, criminal course.

Sunsara Taylor

Revolution Newspaper
Oakland, CA

I understand the motivation behind the drafting of this letter, but placing one's name on it is an act of abject public humiliation. The signatories have watered down their own political aspirations in a misguided effort to reach a political candidate who has no interest in what they have to say. It is sad to see such highly regarded social figures reduced to the level of groveling for scraps off Obama's campaign table. For some reason, Edward Said comes to mind. One hesitates to resuscitate the dead, but I can't imagine that he would have responded to this appeal with anything other than ridicule.

Richard Estes

Sacramento, CA

Now is the time to pledge to give Obama everything you've got... and thank the man and the people who are selflessly with him--not to talk down to him.

The Change is happening without having to remind Senator Obama what we are fighting to change. He is very aware. And he is fighting the beast. The forces that oppose him are no less than the very industrialist inner government that has always run things in America, in my memory--evident before the JFK assassination and, for you older folks, the Dulles brothers. The fascism crowd. If you are so gullible as to believe that Obama is part of that establishment, I've got a radio station in Los Angeles for you to donate to (KPFK).

So the tone of your letter is wrong. The congratulation at the beginning is like the easy letdown of a contestant who is to be told they have failed to be chosen on one of those stupid competition TV reality shows:"You're great, but..." You should be on your knees thanking Obama for daring to step into the shoes of King and Kennedy to try to bring this country back to its progressive roots. That is far more daring than just winning the nomination.

Progressive alert: this is truly our last chance and one of the best bets in town. Don't blow it by thinking that movements such as Obama's are cumulative and will continue with a President McCain. McCain simply "won't be aware" about the suppressing of dissent--the Reagan/Bush model again, only this time around you'll completely lose your Constitution.

Richard Ray Harris

Desert Hot Springs, CA

The Open Letter to Barack Obama has its signers saying re the Iraq war: "If you win in November, we will work to support your stands when we agree with you and to challenge them when we don't."

Why does Obama have to "win" before the signers can question the Senator about such things as the wisdom and fairness of his personal no-draft policy, or of his surrendering to Nancy Pelosi his rights to impeach Bush (and to spare serving-in-the-war troops' lives that way)?

Cameron Jones

Indiana, PA

This "Open Letter to Barack Obama," that is, to Senator Obama I found quite unpleasant and ridiculous. I can't believe anyone would sign on, unless they were stupid change-less relics of the old politics. Really, I would have expected something less arrogant from The Nation. Rather absurd, your repeated promises to maybe back Senator Obama if he dances to your tune. Christ, do you really imagine that you speak for those millions you repeatedly invoke? And whose support you will withhold if he doesn't toe the line. What did you say that you had done for Senator Obama's campaign? I am sure you won't have read this far. Because what could you gather from anyone who does not sign off on your --well--vaunting Open Letter? I cannot imagine that Victor N. would agree with the tone of your letter!

Philip W. Silver

Bernard, ME

While I share the concern that some of Mr. Obama's policy statements have veered toward the centre or even to the right of centre, I am far more concerned with the anemic and unfocused nature of his campaign. Progressives need to understand that while Mr. Obama may not be perfect, in comparison to Mr. McCain he is a giant step in the right direction. Elections in the United States are not fought over or won by stands on issues. They are won by focusing on a few very simple stories--Mr. Obama needs to keep things very, very simple and he needs, from a very personal point of view, to let people know why he as a person is far more suited to lead the country than Mr. McCain. He needs to be very clear about what Mr. McCain stands for and what his flaws are--and this can be done quite easily without resorting to "attack ads." He needs to tell his story in simple language that the media will pick up on and relay to the electorate.

Once Mr. Obama is elected, there will be plenty of time to influence his policie, and progressives will have a much more open ear to address with Mr. Obama in the White House.

Keep it simple. Don't let Mr. McCain's lies go unanswered. Dictate the debate rather than allowing McCain to do so.

Mark Hazell

Duncan, British Columbia, Canada

An Imaginary Response From Barack Obama

Dear friends on the left,

Barack

John Halle

Red Hook, NY

I just signed the open letter to Senator Obama. Forgive my English; my mother tongue is Greek and not English. I did not even know if i should have signed this letter because I am not an American citizen, therefore I don't vote for the American presidency.

From the other hand USA is the one and only superpower in our world so whatever happens there, has effects everywhere. And I (we) have a great interest, to be more specific I (we) care a lot. Bush's Administration was and unfortunately still is a very traumatic experience for every intellectually healthy human being. Bush's Administration was--is--a shame for our common history and civilization.

Senator Obama is extremely popular in Europe. I hope he understands why. No, he is not a "rock star." On the contrary, he is someone who speaks politics. Someone who carries hopes and dreams, he is someone who brings back faith in ideas.

We don't care if he is an African-American. Of course, we understand and we respect the symbolism. And it does represent a breakthrough for America and only America.

We don't really care if he is 47, 52, or whatever. It's not a race matter, and it's not an age matter either.

The change we believe in, the change the world needs is not a President Obama. The change the world desperately needs is a President Obama who will turn into actions all the beautiful ideas and plans he has promised.

The change does not end with President Barack Obama. That's where it starts.

We, citizens of the world, need peace. We, citizens of the world, need back our natural environment. We, citizens of the world, need to see United States of America, as a hope and not as a prospect of disaster.

Is Senator Obama the change? Or is he the excuse of the system so it can remain untouched?

One thing I know deeply well. If he is the change, there is hope for our children. If not, then the amounts of disappointment will be a global bitterness. Therefore an extremely fruitful field for the final decadence.

George Pittas

Nicosia , Cyprus

This is one of the most compelling and sensible communications from the people to Obama. From her words to his ears.

Sidney J. Gluck

New York, NY

If Obama's policies are indeed the ones he promoted to secure the Democratic nomination, there is no possible way he could win the election. Judging by his run for the nomination and his senate record, he is the most liberal candidate to ever be nominated by a major party. And that just won't play on Main Street USA.

Moving to the center may win him some additional votes, but it raises the question of who he really is and how will he govern... and while most understand political expediency, in the general election people prefer a known candidate who is consistent in his platform. Obama is doing just about the worst thing he can by modifying his positions and then telling the public they misunderstood his original position.

It's a shame and very, very telling that there are so many comments here wanting to hide what we suppose BHOs real position to be (remember, we really don't know) in an attempt to steal the election under false pretenses. This isn't change... it's the same old crap.

Thank God, most voters will see right through his politics as usual.

John Simon

Hog Mountain, GA

With express consent of the author, I submit this little piece of doggerel:

Ah! Pity The Nation

They picked their beau from column A
'Cause MSM said "He's OK!"
They told all their friends "With him we'll stay!"
Ah, pity The Nation!

They thought he was fine, they thought he was stout,
And then they discovered him catting about.
He's being unfaithful of that there's no doubt--
Ah, pity The Nation!

They bought the ring when he gave them a rose;
Now they have found the ring's in their nose.
What do they do now he's turned on the hose?
Ah, pity The Nation!

They could call it off and find a new beau.
But they fear ridicule so they still won't say "No!"
Their learning curve is so painfully slow...
Ah, pity The Nation!

MSM has decided "It's A or it's B!
And B is a bounder as well, golly gee!
(But you aren't permitted to pick column C!)"
Ah, pity The Nation!

So they'll marry the cad, on bended knee,
But they'll write him a note with a pitiful plea,
"Oh sir, please, stop beating on poor little me!"
Ah, pity The Nation!

There are those tried and true who would make a good spouse
But these won't be allowed to come in the house
As they stick with this fellow as Lesser Louse--
Ah, pity The Nation!

Sue Hammond

N. Syracuse, NY

I want him to win. And, if he has to pander or move a little to the center to do it, then so be it. I wish that the left would just back down for a little while. The media and even conservatives are using what we are saying to hurt our candidate. Let's hold him accountable when he gets into office. Otherwise, we will be celebrating him staying to the left, while we swear John McCain in.

Nakia Gladden

Baltimore, MD

No candidate has to pay one shred of attention to a constituency that will vote for him anyway. Unless there is a very, very real chance that a constituency will not vote for him, why should he care?

The reason why we're told candidates must move to the "center" and appeal to "independents" is that there is a very real chance those voters could vote for someone else.

So the progressives here are kidding themselves if they think their message of "support Obama" while "keeping his feet to the fire" makes any sense at all.

And that's why I am not voting for Obama. Period. My only dilemma is "Nader or McKinney," but at least I know that my candidate will actually speak for me.

Jan Morales

Takoma Park, MD

How pathetic! Sen Obama has just achieved the delegate number for candidacy, and already there is reason for serious misgivings on the left about his commitments (or what were thought to be his commitments) to progressive change.

From equivocations on a deliberate end to our militarism in Iraq and intensification in Afghanistan to his vote for the new FISA with weakened burden of proof and immunity for telecomes to his support for oil drilling offshore, we see a clear pattern of change--yes, change from the changes we were persuaded to believe!

The Nation and the left should have supported the one candidate, Ralph Nader, whose positions are steadfastly for what The Nation purports to advocate. Yet it and the left generally have chosen instead to support the candidate of the Democrats, the party of WJC. How foolish!

You could have begun a strong movement away from the two-party corporatists. You failed. You will see your failure more clearly in the four years ahead.

Alvin D. Hofer

St. Petersburg, FL

I signed on to The Nation's open letter to Senator Obama despite some disagreements with its contents. Overall, it represents a general theme I support and expresses my general concern about the "move to the center." I have written my own letter in recent months suggesting that all of the campaign staff reread The Audacity of Hope and follow it closely.

Specifically, the US needs to become a world partner as well as a world leader; pure water for people all over the world, partner to eliminate heavily polluting coal-burning electricity production, lead the world in creating a new economy founded on comprehensive recycling of all manufactured goods worldwide. The late Dr. Wolfgang Panofsky suggested that the US work with Iran to produce safe nuclear power, not isolate further this fragile political country, eliminating any justification for processing nuclear fuel that can be used for weapons. The US must lead the way with every diplomatic and financial measure to broker a full peace agreement that assures safety to Israel and to a Palestine nation.

Departing Iraq with all due dispatch must be tempered with the chaos the current Administration's invasion has created. Our shift to Afghanistan must be retrained to minimize our occupation of that sovereign nation and rightfully proud people.

Vote change, Vote Obama in 2008.

Leonard Lloyd

Oakley, CA

Universal Health Insurance (not healthcare).

Add birth control to the "abortion" section.

Price-floor (minimum wage) for farmers!!

The "progressives" are starting to realize their shared agenda. And it won't stop at this election!

Dustin Price

Chicago, IL

Here is my own letter to Barack Obama.

Senator Obama,

You do not have to acknowledge your "blackness" just as you do not have to acknowledge your "maleness" or "religion."

Only people who need to make that destinction will do so.

I am a yellow dog Democrat and that's what I want acknowledged by you. I want to hear about the government's efforts that pulled us out of the class struggle in the Depression. I want to hear about a government that is more concerned about protecting my individual rights rather than suspicious of my private activities. I want to hear about my government doing something the world will admire, not fear. I want to see the government deliver the same promises to anyone who tries real hard.

That's why I want you to me my next President.

Paul Maxwell

Choctaw, OK

We who are opposed to the present Administration, and not excluding any of us who've signed this letter to Barack Obama, are somewhere between 4,100 and 4,700 dead soldiers past the point at which we needed to request anything of anyone in our government. Now we have only to demand.

If politicians, even those running for the White House, don't like knowing how it feels to serve, they can leave. I, for one, invite them to.

J.E. Bernecky

Westover, PA

After reading the web letters so far, I have one question of the writers. Are you all going to forego your votes for Obama as a result of your criticisms and therefore truly threaten his election?

This is reality, folks, we are not going to get a truly progressive administration in our capitalist country and we are fortunate to have a Democratic nominee who is far better than I had hoped for. Sure, it would be wonderful to be able to have Kucinich running for President, but this country--which has enough trouble accepting a black man--would surely not give the time of day to a true progressive.

Let us support Obama and keep his feet to the fire about the issues we are all concerned about.And do write letters to his website about your concerns.

And for those who are angry about Hillary not making it, I cannot understand anyone letting their biases take precedence over their political instincts. She was and would have been a disaster far worse than anything you can dream up about Obama.

I am amazed at the inability to face the facts and the mud-slinging equal to that of the McCain campaign. I wonder if the writers of some of these letters were indeed progressives or Republicans in disguise.

Pearl Volkov

Burlington, Ontario, Canada

It's just what the Obama campaign needs right now. A bunch of lefty fringe politicos attempting to pull him to the lunatic fringe of our party, lose the center and independents, and lose to McCain so their girl Hillary can have her shot in 2012.

Ending significant military involvement in Iraq isn't enough. Nor is avoiding war in Iran, strengthening Social Security and Medicare, reigning in the major corporations in the country who have written much of the nations legislation for the past seven years, strengthening labor and the right to unionize, raising wages, lowering interest rates by making usuary illegal again, rebuilding our nations infrastructure, increasing government revenues through tariffs on certain goods. Lowering the cost of healthcare on those who earn less than $250,000 per year.

None of that is good enough, unless you people are allowed to roam the streets smoking pot, our borders are open to Mexico for cheap labor(though it still takes ten years for legal immigrants from other countries to enter) and prostitution is legal in all fifty states.

Make your contributions to his campaign. Show up to vote for Obama in November. Get as many people to do this as you can. Four or eight more years of Republican rule is out of the question. Once Barack Obama is sworn in to office, voice all the complaints and concerns you want.

Remember, FDR did not run as a progressive either.

Until then, please, shut the hell up!

Dennis N. Wilder

Portland, OR

I have enjoyed reading the letters about this petition so much more than the petition itself. I edit The City Edition, which has published investigative articles about the Democratic primaries and the candidates since January. It's incredible how few journalists and celebrities have done their homework about what's going on here. Otherwise, they would know that Karl Rove and the neocons had this election scripted out four years ago. In 2004, they made Jack Ryan drop out of the US Senate race in Illinois so Obama would win. The same thing was repeated in the primaries, this time with the Democratic Party establishment harassing Hillary Clinton to withdraw. The caucuses were rigged and her Florida/ Michigan haul of delegates was clipped; otherwise, she'd be the nominee right now.

Now, if Obama meant what he said about those Washington insiders "boiling and stewing all the hope out of me," why were these same people boiling and stewing the life out of Clinton's candidacy? This isn't rocket science, folks. If you follow the money and Donna Brazile, you'll see how Rove pulled off his third presidency in a row. Likely the G.O.P. will disqualify McCain at their convention over his birth outside the US, then field the Bush/Cheney successor ticket then.

Really, any progressive with a stitch of spine left in them would be in Clinton's face right now (or one of her offices) demanding that she announce an independent run before it's too late.

Rosemary Regello
TheCityEdition.com

San Francisco, CA

What is the point? Many of understood from the beginning that Obama was a pragmatist. I don't have a problem with that. What I do have a problem with is that The Nation jumped on the American Idol bandwagon with this primary. Hillary is/was a pragmatist too. But all you people at The Nation were hell-bent on trashing her. I can only guess that gender matters. Hillary and Obama were nearly identicial on issues. Hillary Iraq vote as the decider? Give me a break. Hillary represented New York. Hillary represented her constituency, not by voting for war but by giving W. the power to use a big stick with Iraq. In retrospect, it was a mistake but not one made because of being a war-monger. You all know that.

In the end, Hillary is a worker. Like most accomplished women she has worked twice as hard for half the credit. The editor of this magazine, a woman, betrayed women. So many powerful women seemed to resent women while working women like myself see the truth. Why? Because Senator Clinton has worked for women, all women, rich, poor, black, brown, white, yellow, all kinds of women all of her life. She was beloved in the AA community for that reason and you, the supposedly liberal publication, sat quietly and in some instances supported the untruth... that Senator Clinton was a racist.

I am so angry at The Nation, I will probably no long read and never subscribe. You now want me to sign a letter to beg Senator Obama to do the things you all said he would do but Senator Clinton would not? Are you kidding me?

Just another old white working-class woman who has been betrayed yet again by the so called progressive movement,

J.J. Cardamone

Colorado Springs, CO

This open letter is a symptom of why Republicans are gaining ground and we are losing it. While the GOP is focusing its attacks against Obama and promoting McCain with enormous zeal, we are threatening Obama to stick with progressive principles or risk losing his enthusiastic backing. This is an election of enormous consequence, and America cannot tolerate McCain winning if it wants to preserve its soul or the health of its middle class. With the stakes so critically high, I would suggest to The Nation that we zealously fight to get Obama elected and protect him with the same furious political aggression as we will encounter, instead of giving lectures to Obama as he is under attack from those who seek to destroy him politically.

Michael Johnson

Chicago, IL

It's with a sense of relief and joy that I signed my name to The Nation's letter. Relief, because since the FISA vote I have wondered if there was any way in which to influence Obama's campaign "advisers" who have obviously pushed him to move to the center and, in the case of FISA, to the right. Joy because you covered so many of my concerns, and included the final paragraph that communicated the Progressives' commitment to work for constructive change.

I spent time studying social movements in the USA as a graduate student in Sociology, and I wrote a master's thesis on Kansas populism, which was a part of the larger first USA Progressive movement. That background leads me to suggest to those who are planning Obama's campaign: please consult some knowledgeable sociologists about their views on the current status of our Second Progressive Movement, now making good headway, from my perspective. Count the number of grassroots "change" organizations that have formed in the past few years, the number of people refusing to put their heads in the sand or to become acclimated to the incremental destruction of our constitutional democracy. I believe there is currently enough strength in this movement for Obama to present himself as a 100 percent Progressive. Yes. we can restore our Constitution, stop torture, shore up our economy,rebuild our infrastructure, restore our moral standing in the world and bring about social justice in our beloved nation. Eternal vigilance is the essential, yet insufficient, price of freedom. Social justice must be moved from myth to reality if we are to renew our freedom and move our experiment in democracy forward.

Thanks for reading my thoughts.

Martha Warner

Carrboro, NC

How pathetic!

Hate to say I told you so. No, wait. I'm going to enjoy this.

I told you so. I told you so. I told you so.

O-blah-blah never promised you a damn thing. He told you what you wanted to hear. He is a salesman, an actor reading a script. It's all posturing and marketing. Smoke and mirrors. And you all bought it, hook, line and sinker. I thought you were all supposed to be intelligent. The rest of us could all see though this crap.

Obama is not the celebrity candidate, he is the American Idol candidate. He is a trend. We have serious problems, and Obama doesn't have the first clue how to solve them. And if he did, he is too lazy to do the actual work needed. See, Obama has never actually done the work of the offices he holds. He just runs to get elected and then moves on to the next thing. And now we are stuck with him. You people bought him and now we are all going to have to pay for your shortsightedness.

Obama is no better than Bush. I blame each and every one of you for not listening to us. You dismissed us as old hags. You voted for style over substance. You created this mess and now you have to face the music.

I just want the Obamabots to remember one thing. We could have had a person who could actually get something done. We had an opportunity for real change. You blew it.

Nancy Cummings

Fort Mill, SC

Thanks for this handy list of jerks. You know, people who get jerked around.

Alice Molloy

Oakland , CA

Oh my! A begging letter to a right-wing American Idol candidate who knows you are going to vote for him anyway. If it were not for the fact that you have saddled us with John McCain for the next four years, this would be almost funny.

Katherine Covard

Oklahoma City, OK

My wife and I signed this letter, although, we were hoping it would end with a summation more reflective of our position. Something like:

With all your talk of bipartisanship and "reaching across lines," you are simply showing the same bipartisanship that has ruined the Democratic Party--that is, running to the center/right to get votes rather than showing some inspiring leadership to bring votes to you. Should you fail to reverse course before Election Day, and bring yourself in line with the hopes and aspirations of those who got you this far, we will not vote for you. We will vote for Mr. Nader or Ms. McKinney, either of whom, at this point, have shown themselves to be far more committed to the "change" on which you have based your candidacy. There is another way, sir.

You must be better than this or we will, as a nation, be irretrievably lost.

Mark D. Bolton

Leesburg, NJ

Wouldn’t it be easier to just ask him to follow the Communist Manifesto?

Robert Exton

San Fransisco , CA

There is one glaring omission in this "to do" list. By signing this statement does one agree with Obama's disastrous policy of escalation in Afghanistan?

Can somebody at The Nation or any one of the people (many of whom I admire) on this list please explain to me why Afghanistan is the "good" war? Can someone at The Nation please explain how occupying another country and killing its citizens makes us safer and moves that country toward being a peaceful, law-abiding democracy? Why in God's name do so many so-called "liberals" and "progressives" either remain silent witnesses to this slaughter or in fact beat the drum for more war in Afghanistan?

What the hell is going on here? It shows real depraved indifference to human suffering and a kind of jaw-dropping hypocrisy to demand a withdrawal from Iraq while cheering on the killing in Afghanistan.

Martin Smith

New York, NY

I find it curious that the progressives writing this letter have chosen to recognize now Obama's right-ward political leanings. He has been consistently running to the right of any other Democratic candidate since the start of the primary. It's true that his positions are nuanced, and perhaps the signers were not interested in the details of his policy positions, but even in broad strokes his positions were never those ascribed to him in this letter.

For example, he has never been for universal healthcare. He wants universal care for children, but if you're over the age of consent, forget it. His economic policies are guided by the Chicago School of economics--a left-ward leaning branch, but still!

Anyone who bothered to learn anything about him could have predicted this. I think, instead, that the writers of this letter were guilty of the kind of "noble savage" racism that led them to believe they knew the man by virtue of his skin color. Either that, or they assumed anyone who wasn't a DLC Democrat was by definition a progressive. Intellectual laziness or prejudice--either way, not a company I would want to be counted in.

Still, at least this letter does address a concern of the progressive community: how to put pressure on our representatives to follow through on progressive policies. This is a wider concern than just Obama. After all, how many other Democrats have refused to take action on war profiteering, impeaching the President, FISA etc. The progressive community should be able to forcefully advocate for issues on which we are in agreement, and do so with our voices, our media and our money. This letter will not be effective, but perhaps it can help build momentum for a movement that will be.

Tyrin Avery

Andover, MA

How pathetic. So-called "progressives" begging corporatist candidate Obama to do the right thing. Here's what this sad letter says: "Here's a list of things you can ignore because we're going to vote for you anyway. Some of us will even tell our followers to vote for you anyway." I can't believe you voluntarily humiliate yourselves this way.

How about supporting a candidate that already champions your issues, instead of one you have to get down on your knees and beg to? I can think of two serious candidates right now who you could support without begging, who could use your support. Or are you too cowardly and beaten down?

You people really make me sick. With friends like you, who needs Republicans?

Jan Morales

Takoma Park, MD

My husband and I will be cancelling our subscription to The Nation because of this letter. I do not understand how "the left" can publish such a letter during an election that is extremely close. Do you want John McCain to win?

I can already see the commercial the Republican Party will run using some part of the letter to say how Senator Obama is not specific in his rhetoric. You are only helping the undecided and the centrist Republicans to vote for McCain, vote for a third party or not vote at all. I do not want John McCain as President. If you disagree with some issues, then your positions should be discussed face-to-face with Senator Obama, not in an open letter that will be misconstrued and used against Senator Obama. I believe you are the ones who are being "elitist"!

Linda McCollester

Pittsburgh, PA

Please tell me what makes you at the Nation think Barak Obama cares in the least about this little letter from an organization and a group of people who aided in propelling ( the least qualified candidate in history ) him to the Democratic nomination. As a former subscriber to your magazine I am absolutely disgusted with your vision of the man. Not all AA will be voting for him. I must admit however, that those of us who are not are in the minority. Personally I don't care about the color of the person's skin or their gender or that they are bi-racial. I want some one who is going to work to leave this world a better place for my great-grandchildren. As I see it Barak Obama is NOT that person. He has played you and a lot of others like a fiddle. He and his staff ar probally looking at your pitiful little letter and laughing their asses off SHAME ON YOU !!!!!!!!!

Helen Sheffield

Riverside, CA

The verdict is in--progressives are natural born suckers. There is nothing about Mr. Obama that will stand up as progressive. You had not one but two progressive candidates, and you shunned them both for some flash, some charisma and a dash of charm.

Mr. Obama is at best a rerun of the corporatist policies of Bill and Hillary Clinton. What exactly does it take to learn?

What shocks me most is why someone with the stature of Howard Zinn or the raw intelligence of Katrina vanden Heuval would prostrate themselves pleading now for crumbs!

Gracious me--is there something in the water, that we aren't getting out here in the boondocks? If all you "experts" are so easily and swiftly taken in, what on earth do you expect from the electorate? Good luck in '08!

Mark Deneen

Ferndale, CA

And, Mr. Obama, drop your plans to reinvade Afghanistan again. We've done it once, the British tried it as did the Russians. It's a lose-lose situation.

Work on building a more perfect union in the US. Forget about "helping" other countries under the guise of humanitarian intervention.

Simply put, Mr. Obama, there must be better ways to get oil and gas than though invading countries.

Howard Kaplan

Belmont, MA

That open letter to Barack Obama is pathetic. He has not moved to a centrist position but to the right. Since the primaries, he has made it clear that appealing to progressives is not his plan. The best candidates were knocked out, with your help, and this is what we are stuck with.

Catherine George

Dallas, TX

Silly letter writers. It's a waste of time to say "We told you so." If you hadn't been so swept up in the identification with the bright young things that Obama's crafty marketing crew constructed for you, you would have realized that all the things you claim you want were available all along. All you had to do was click your ruby slippers and vote for Hillary Clinton.

Even now, you cringe with disgust from the mere mention of her name. C'mon, admit it. You just made a face and had an internal monologue about how she'd be the last person you'd vote for, what with all her corporatism and warmongering and stuff that is beneath your refined sensibilities.

Now, your stuck with a corporatist, privacy scoffing, possibly dragging-his-feet-in-Iraq'ing, lightweight schmoozer who thinks he's a symbol for all that is good about America.

And he's going up against the Republicans unless you stop him.

There's still time.

K.A. Mason

Princeton, NJ

While I admire many of the people who signed the above letter, I must disagree with their focus.

It has been clear to me and many of you that since the early to mid-1990s the Democratic Party has become a second corporate party, and that any candidate who wanted to have its nomination would have to veer strongly to the right on a whole range of issues.

Instead of attempting to reform and influence a thoroughly corrupted corporate party, why do you not simply support one of the truly progressive candidates who are running? I will vote Nader, because he stands for all the things you claim to stand for. How can you support Obama when he refuses to even talk about these issues, and you have to literally beg him nicely to include them in his campaign. Why should we ask, when others (Nader, McKinney etc.) already do so?

Let's have some guts, support true progressive/left candidates, and then maybe they will have a chance to compete and win and create real change.

Branden Rippey

Jersey City, NJ

I applaud your open letter to Obama, except for its disturbing failure to mention the most pressing foreign policy issue facing our country today. Not Iraq, not Afghanistan, but Israel's clear intent to bomb Iran, and perhaps bomb them with nukes should Iran have the temerity to retaliate. Where's the outrage? There should be a much larger antiwar movement in America and Europe against Israel's determination to bomb Iran than the movement preceding the neocon's crazy, lying, botched invasion of Iraq. The Republicans are clearly so furious with the neocons for destroying their party with the complete debacle of their proxy war for Israel in Iraq that they have warned Bush not to put the final nails in the Republican coffin by bombing Iran for Israel himself. The Republicans are savvy enough to understand the full enormity of the economic consequences of Israel's bombing Iran: $12 gas (and unaffordable heating oil throughout the Rust Belt), wiping out the meager savings of ordinary Americans when world markets tank over the exploded price of oil, and a worldwide Depression following this crash. Think of the disaster for tens of millions of Chinese, just for starters, not to mention lower-class Americans, of worldwide depression! Not to mention the indefensible murder by Israeli bombs of thousands of innocent Iranians, maybe millions if Israel goes nuclear with them. Haven't we learned anything from the insanity of the neocon/Likud theory of pre-emptive war in Iraq?

If Israel bombs Iran, and basically wipes out the American economy, can anyone imagine the volcanic rage the masses of America would feel towards Israel? There would be no ambiguity at all about who caused all the economic fallout in America. Can anyone doubt that a new George Wallace would soon arise to take full demagogic advantage of the rage? Can anyone doubt that American support for Israel would be political poison outside Manhattan and Boca Raton?

The entire civilized world would share the rage of Middle America against Israel. This universal rage would be much more suicidal for Israel than passively waiting for Iranian nukes, if that were the only option. Which, of course, it is not. If Obama wins and completely reverses America's international diplomatic helplessness overnight, he could unite the world in an unexampled diplomatic offensive against the development of Iranian nukes. If Iran remained adamant in the face of such a united world community, and moved ever closer to developing nukes (despite the US government's own report not long ago saying they aren't developing them anyway), then, with due warning to the world, perhaps Obama would have to wipe out Iran's nuke plants himself. But only as an absolute last resort, not as the crazy pre-emptive attack planned by Israel, in complete defiance of every civilized principle there is, just like the neocons' completely uncalled for invasion of Iraq for Israel in the first place.

Where's the outrage?

Fred White

Baltimore, MD

The letter loses quite a bit of credibility when the signatures include Nobama Sweeney, Osama bin Laden, and multiple entries from William A. Arney. (And that's just on one page.) Is there a way to tighten up the signing process to exclude pseudonyms and duplicates? Thanks.

Lee Pritchard

Santa Monica, CA

I can't support abortion. Makes me ill to think how it is done and for the usual reasons: economic or just selfishness.

No mention of speaking firmly to the Israelis that Obama and Congress will cut off all financial aid to Israel until Israel conforms to the Declaration of Human Rights, including the right of return of the Palestinian diaspora.

Thomas Chisholm

Chippewa Falls, WI

I am amazed at the audacity of you people in writing this letter to Obama. Did you not listen to what he said during the primaries? Did your blind hatred for Hillary make you overlook Obama? He has never been nor will he be a progressive. He is arrogant and full of himself (not unlike the current occupant of the White House).

Look how he has voted to continue funding the war, how he has changed his mind about getting out of Iraq and going into Afghanistan, voting for the compromise(d) FISA Bill (you can bet your bottom dollar that he would have voted for the Iraq War if he had been in the Senate), expanding the faith-based programs etc. The list goes on and on.

You people have been had. Unfortunately, we are now stuck with Obama as the candidate.

Audrey Hannifin

Denver, CO

And gun control?

Marc Edelman

New York, NY

My open letter to Obama.

Dear Senator Obama: I believe in my ability to work towards and recognize change. Unfortunately I feel that having you in the White House will not instigate real change. It will note bring about:

Single-payer healthcare for all.
Immediate withdrawal from Iraq, without re-deployment of troops to fight the "real" war in Afghanistan.
Cutting the bloated military budget.
No to nuclear power, solar energy first.
No to NAFTA.
No to corporate crimes and welfare.
Repeal of anti-union laws.
Accountability by bringing this current Administration to justice, or at least not standing in the way.
No to Israeli occupation of Palestine, no to more of our taxes to support that atrocity.

So you see why I can't support you. My vote will go to a third-party candidate who is steadfast, with a true progressive agenda as described above, focused on peace and justice.

It's unfortunate that most of the American People are not willing to consider supporting one of several presidential candidates who have committed to those aspirations: Ralph Nader, Cynthia McKinney. Also check out Bob Barr.

Ineke Deruyter

Portland, OR

Here's my own letter to Barack Obama.

Dear Mr. Obama: You frighten me a great deal; you seem to be too good to be true. Be that as it may, I was surprised and very much concerned a couple of days ago when you decided our soldiers should go to Afghanistan and out of Iraq instead of bringing them all home.

You can’t fight, repeat, cannot fight terrorism with an army--we’ve been at it for a few years and we’ve managed to get over 4,000 of our troops killed and hundreds of thousands of Iraqis. I hope that tells you something.

Please stop the macho stuff and just get the troops back home.

Jorge Larco

Portland, OR

I will never support any candidate who has called for an undivided Jerusalem as an Israeli capital. Is Barack Obama ignorant of the UN charter declaring Jerusalem an international city, the prospective capital of both an Israeli and Palestinian state? Why has he so totally embraced the genocidal agenda of the Likud and the IDF in total contravention of international laws and UN resolutions? Moreover, I will never vote for any candidate that is not energetically pursuing impeachment of this Administration for its multiple violations of constitutional law.

Obama is a feel-good candidate who promises more of the same.

Kenneth Jopp

Concord, NY

Once the media jumped on the Obama ticket, Progressives sold out their own candidates in Edwards and Dodd, and now they want to beg Obama to come back to the left?

Someone needs to tell them that it's too late to buy out now. He's your guy. Live with it.

T.W. Albert

Chicago, IL

I loved the open letter. However, unless I missed it somewhere, you skipped commenting on the continued commitment to the separation of church and state.

While I think it a brilliant political move by the Senator, listening to him discuss "faith-based" activities sends a shiver through my spine.

Nina Stachenfeld

West Haven, CT

The open letter to Obama reminds me of a desperate plea to a pathologically cheating spouse--full of denial and false hope.

Obama has been in bed with corporations for quite some time and he consistently acts in their interests at the expense of the rest of us. His recent acts are at odds with his rhetoric, but not with his past behavior, which made his more blatant “move away from his core commitments” completely predictable.

There is no evidence that Obama will effect the change he spoke of in the past, and every indication that he will perpetuate the status quo.

Our relationship with him is toxic to us and will continue to be so until we accept reality and walk out the door.

Running to his family (the Democrats) is as useless as it would be to run to McCain or his Republican family.

Our best option is to support members of third parties with track records of acting in the public interest. That support must be both up to and beyond Election Day, so that good candidates win and then continue to have our collective weight behind them when they tackle the daunting task of reforming our entire corrupted system.

Stephanie Remington

Costa Mesa, CA