To the Editors of the CRIMSON:

I read Thomas Southwick's column on the Presidential candidacy of Senator McGovern, and having worked for a time in Senator McGovern's 1968 campaign. I do not disagree with Mr. Southwick's high opinion of the Senator.

However, I am now working for Senator Muskie because I believe he can provide the quality of leadership which I believe the country most needs right now. Rather than detailing all my reasons for feeling this way in this letter. I would like to make at least one important point-on all the most fundamental issues facing the country today. I can see no real substantive difference between the positions held by Senator McGovern and those held by Senator Muskie. On the issue of the Southeast Asia War, Senator Muskie was a co-sponsor of the 1970 McGovern-Hatfield amendment and is currently a co-sponsor of the 1971 version. Last week at the University of Pennsylvania, he called for a full pull-out of all U. S. forces by December 31, 1971; questioned the morality of the Vietnamization program, which merely transfers by proxy who will be doing the killing in South Vietnam; and challenged the major assumptions of U. S. foreign policy which led to our initial involvement in South Vietnam. This is his position today. These would be his policies if he were to be elected President.

Those who feel compelled to work for Senator McGovern because he came to some of these positions at an earlier point in time than Senator Muskie should obviously do so. However, a lot of people in America were late in seeing the real dimensions of the tragedy in Southeast Asia. Robert Kennedy, for example, was making speeches indicating support of President Johnson's position late in 1967. What is important to me is the substance and strength of a candidate's current positions; and, if there has been a change of position, whether that change was sincerely felt, or merely opportunist. I am convinced that Senator Muskie's current position on the war is deeply sincere; and that he has a unique ability to move a large constituency in the United States-on the issue of the war, as well as fundamental domestic issues-much further in the direction that they have to be moved than any other candidate. Somehow, he can make the same statements and wage the same fights as other liberal Democrats-but his style and manner don't seem to frighten people who may not agree with him.

Some may disagree with my assessment of the kind of leadership which the country needs. But, in the coming months, I hope it will become increasingly clear that on the things which mean most to students and young people, there will be little disagreement between Senator Muskie and Senator McGovern. And, whoever the nominee ultimately is, there should not have to be the fundamental kinds of divisions which led to the malaise of 1968.