<p>"Several prominent leftist scholars have signed An Open Letter to Barack Obama that urges him to stick with the positions he staked out in the Democratic primarieswhen he favored adopting universal health care and withdrawing from Iraq on a fixed timetableand not move closer to the political center in his general-election bid.</p>
<p>The letter, dated July 30 and published in the August 18 edition of The Nation, tells the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee: You stand today at the head of a movement that believes deeply in the change you have claimed as the mantle of your campaign. But, the letter says, there have been troubling signs that you are moving away from the core commitments shared by many who have supported your campaign, toward a more cautious and centrist stance. It cites as an example his support for changes to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act that granted telecommunications companies immunity from prosecution for illegal wiretapping. His position on those changes, the letter says, angered and dismayed many of his supporters.</p>
<p>The letter says: We recognize that compromise is necessary in any democracy. We understand that the pressures brought to bear on those seeking the highest office are intense. But retreating from the stands that have been the signature of your campaign will weaken the movement whose vigorous backing you need in order to win and then deliver the change you have promised.</p>
<p>Among the positions the letter urges Senator Obama to stick with are those favoring improved access to abortion, the reform of drug laws, and public investments to create jobs.</p>
<p>The letter also says that signers look forward to an ongoing and constructive dialogue with you when you are elected president concerning other issues in which Senator Obamas stated positions have varied from those of many on the left."</p>
<p>Too bad the lefties at the Nation don’t understand that this is precisely why you want candidates with long, consistent public records. For example, it is highly, highly unlikely that Sen Clinton will be voting “present” on an abortion bill or Sen McCain will be voting “aye” on pork barrell spending any time soon.</p>
<p>I wonder what many ultra liberals are feeling. On this board it seems that many are walking backwards with The ONE. Are there any who feel they are standing alone?</p>
<p>I know that many (after crucifying Clintons) are complaining that He/She is not doing enough to support The One.</p>
<p>“ultra liberals” supported Dennis Kucinich in the primaries; “progressives” supported John Edwards. Obama & Clinton were the more moderate candidates all along.</p>
<p>How naive are these scholars? Candidates always cater to the base to get the nomination and then move to the center for the general election. Did they really believe Obama’s spring campaign was based upon deeply held principles? Haven’t they figured out that Obama is just another politician? Rev. Wright figured that out. “He’s a politician, I’m a pastor. We speak to two different audiences. And he says what he has to say as a politician. I say what I have to say as a pastor. But they’re two different worlds. I do what I do. He does what politicians do.”</p>
<p>The only people calling Obama The One are conservatives, republicans, disappointed Clinton/Edwards/Kucinich supporters and those who are overall sour grapes.</p>
<p>“The only people calling Obama The One are conservatives, republicans, disappointed Clinton/Edwards/Kucinich supporters and those who are overall sour grapes.”</p>
<p>Well, taken together, that looks like a landslide for McCain.</p>
<p>I don’t think there are a whole lot of disappointed Edwards and Kucinich supporters who are out to get Obama now… I think THAT role tends to go to disappointed Clinton supporters more than anything because they care about the candidate more than the issues.</p>
<p>“I think THAT role tends to go to disappointed Clinton supporters more than anything because they care about the candidate more than the issues.”</p>
<p>Well, to a certain extent, this is a justifiable position. Just because two people have similar platforms doesn’t make them equally qualified to be president. I imagine that there are a lot of college students who agree with Obama on all of his positions. It doesn’t mean that any of them are qualified to be president. Likewise, a Hillary supporter may agree with 99% of Obama’s positions but still find him unqualified to be president.</p>
But imo there’s a difference between saying “I don’t think this guy as qualified as my chosen candidate so I don’t support him” and “my chosen candidate didn’t win so I’m going to support the opposing candidate with completely different views.”</p>
<p>I agree with you completely, Jarn. It’s like the old adage of cutting off one’s nose to spite one’s face. Utterly ridiculous. … My 80-year-old mother-in-law, a fire-breathing Hillary supporter to the marrow of her bones, doesn’t much care for Obama after the ugly primary campaign. But she’ll vote for him in November, because his stands on issues are, for the most part, very close to those of Clinton. To her, a vote for McCain–even a protest vote–simply wouldn’t make sense. At her age, she doesn’t know how many votes she has left to cast, so every one is precious. She’ll be making no belligerent statements this fall by voting for a candidate she disagrees with on major issues.</p>