I am a longtime reader of The Nation magazine, which is one of the oldest progressive publications in this country, with some wonderful writers among its usual contributors (my particular favorites: Calvin Trillin and Katha Pollitt) . It did not surprise me unduly when the magazine all-but-endorsed Senator Obama back in January. It does interest me though to see that The Nation seems to be experiencing some (sort of?) buyer's remorse. Now The Nation is sponsoring an "Open Letter to Barack Obama, " a letter "...calling on Barack Obama to stand firm on the principles he so compellingly articulated in the primary campaign." Full text of the letter here. The letter makes me sad. It is sad that people who willingly supported Senator Obama when he seemed to them to be a genuine progressive apparently now are having to learn the hard way that Senator Obama was never the most progressive candidate in the Democratic field of contenders. It also makes me sad because whoever wrote the letter seems a bit confused as to the principles Senator Obama articulated - compellingly or otherwise - when the primaries were happening. For example, the letter lists universal health care as one of the positions that Senator Obama once "embraced." Senator Obama never embraced, put forth, or supported a plan for universal health care. He consistently argued for a health care plan that might be called sort-of universal - except for the fact that when it comes to health insurance a plan is either universal or it is isn't - almost universal is not universal. The signatories to the letter so far include many people whose work I know and admire , including, among many others, Katha Pollitt (check out her latest column about Senator Obama, "Flocking to Faith"), historian Howard Zinn, and writer Studs Terkel. I have no idea if these signatories realize that the Democratic Party still has a real opportunity to nominate a candidate who has consistently supported fully universal health care, a candidate who has always had and continues to have a "commitment to the rights of women, including the right to choose abortion and improved access to abortion and reproductive health services" and a "commitment to improving conditions in urban communities and ending racial inequality, including disparities in education through reform of the No Child Left Behind Act and other measures" (two other items on the list the letter says Senator Obama embraced during the primaries). That candidate is Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton. I certainly understand the prudence of trying to write flatteringly to somebody who potentially could be our next president (although if recent polls indicate anything, Senator Obama is ever-less likely to be that, should he become the Democratic Party's actual candidate). I also appreciate the strategy of trying to keep or inspire a would-be Democratic president committed to progressive ideals. But there would be nothing inconsistent in doing this with regard to Senator Obama while also supporting equal opportunity for a proven progressive Democratic would-be President such as Senator Clinton. The writers of the letter could show such support by learning about The Denver Group and making a contribution to support its efforts to keep the Democratic Party democratic, for example, or, if they have not done so already, donating to retire Senator Clinton's primary debt. They could even sign another open letter, this one by The Denver Group urging Howard Dean to make sure that Senator Clinton's name is placed in nomination at the convention in August. If Senator Obama is as genuinely progressive as The Nation and its open letter's signers hope he is, he would not take any of these actions amiss. True progressivism allows for pluralism. Common sense progressives accept the fact that until The Democratic Party holds its formal nominating convention, the Democratic Party has not yet selected a candidate to represent it in the general election. Pragmatic progressives, who appreciate the prudence and strategy displayed in The Nation's open letter, would want the opportunity for the Democratic Party to increase its odds of nominating a candidate who can win this fall.