No signs of audacity on Cuba: Obama's proposal less than it seems?

[Karmadillo]

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion/chi-oped0823chapmanaug23,0,139341.column

<edit>

The other day, Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) reopened the discussion of Cuba policy with an op-ed in The Miami Herald that accused President Bush of "blundering," stressed the need to "help the Cuban people become less dependent on the Castro regime," and promised to "grant Cuban-Americans unrestricted rights to visit family and send remittances to the island."

This may sound like a bold and refreshing attempt to overhaul our Cuba policy. In fact, it's a cheerful embrace of a strategy that has proved its futility year after year. The crucial message of his article is not how much Obama would change President Bush's approach, but how little.

<edit>

By supporting more travel, Obama proved himself to be less timid than Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.), who shuns the idea. But even his proposal offers less than meets the eye. He does not suggest anything so revolutionary as, say, letting all Americans decide for themselves whether to visit Castro's tropical prison camp. The only people he would allow to go, or send money, would be Cuban-Americans.

As for our vain effort to starve Havana into submission, Obama says he would be willing to "ease" the blockade -- not lift it, merely ease it -- only if, after Castro is gone, the "government begins opening Cuba to democratic change." Well, imagine that.

<edit>

Obama's proposal would be notable if it risked losing votes among Cuban-Americans. In fact, it roughly approximates the position taken by John Kerry in 2004.

It may not be a shock to find that Obama, who vows to change the way Washington works, plans no such change when it comes to how Washington works on Cuba. But it does suggest that the only place to find Obama and audacity in close proximity is on the cover of his book.

[polichick]

1. Obama is a rock star, no doubt, but...

I've been wondering where the "audacity" is too ~ rhetoric is one thing, but I want to see audacity in policy change.

[maximusveritas]

3. He never promised any audacity. You just didn't understand the title of his book

It was called "The Audacity of Hope"
The media tries to play on that to create their usual dumb headlines. Unfortunately, some people like yourself actually take it as fact.

[polichick]

5. Nice spin, but please don't put words in my mouth...

I'm the last person to fall for msm bullshit. Obama used the word "audacity" himself ~ I said I'd like to see some audacity in policy change. imo hope is meaningless without action. His position on Cuba seems to be about vote-getting. Any American should be able to visit Cuba.

[AtomicKitten]

20. I hope you will reconsider

Obama knowing the OP is a commentary.

I am thrilled he has come out on this.

[polichick]

21. All our candidates are admirable imo...

At this point though, I'm just watching and commenting on what I see. Growing up in Florida, I always thought it was ridiculous that we couldn't visit Cuba. I wish Obama had gone further on this, instead of what looks like fishing for the Cuban vote. He's playing it a little too safe for me, as is Clinton of course. I think in the end that will prove to be a mistake ~ the country is ripe for big bold change.

Still, unless Gore runs as an indie, I'll support any of the Dems 100% in the general!

[AtomicKitten]

25. I agree on all counts. (nt)

[rinsd]

2. Even just incremental change is preferrable to what we have now.

And I say that as a Hillary supporter who believes her position on this issue is wrong.

[zulchzulu]

24. Amen to that

Not even getting into Senator Clinton's recent remarks, it is best we at least deal with being good continental citizens with Cuba at the least...and if it's incremental, at least it's a change for the positive.

I hope Senator Clinton reviews her view on Cuba as well.

[rinsd]

27. I too hope she reviews her position and sees the folly of the policy that currently exists.

[AtomicKitten]

4. Obama took a chance on his stance on Cuba, and I support it.

Parsing his words for the purpose of denigration serves what purpose exactly?

On edit: That's a rhetorical question to the "concern" expressed in the OP.

[Karmadillo]

6. Perhaps the author was parsing not to denigrate but to demonstrate Obama's proposal

was not as audacious as the initial press coverage suggested. The author (rightly, in my opinion) believes we should have a significant change in our failed Cuba policy and wants readers to know Obama's not proposing that kind of change.

[AtomicKitten]

7. Please explain how Obama is responsible for how the Media Heathers frame this.

And while Obama's view on Cuba may not be as sweeping at first glance as some may desire, he still broached an otherwise untenable subject and proposed a new direction, one that I wholeheartedly support because the US policy toward Cuba is retarded.

That's nothing to sneeze at in spite of the "concern" it's not good enough, fast enough, or gosh darn it audacious enough. :eyes:

[Karmadillo]

8. Not really a new direction, as the article makes pretty clear.

And given that a majority of Cuban-Americans in Miami support what Obama proposed, I'm not sure it isn't a matter of audaciousness as much as trying to get back into the race for Florida's delegates.

[AtomicKitten]

10. ahem -- this isn't an "article" -- it's commentary, an opinion piece

enough said

[Karmadillo]

11. that points out Obama solidly embraces America's failed Cuba policy

and that a tweak is just a tweak no matter how much some would like to transform it into something significant.

[AtomicKitten]

12. The commentator SUGGESTS that -- it doesn't point it out.

You do understand what an opinion piece is, right?

You can ride it all you like in your quest to marginalize Obama but it doesn't make it factual or truthful. It's just something you choose to embrace for obvious reasons.

[Karmadillo]

14. Please point out which of the many facts cited in the article are incorrect.

Also, please point out which of the conclusions are unsupported.

[AtomicKitten]

15. Here are some contradictory opinions -- please to enjoy.

Obama on Cuba: Another Heterodoxy?

Barack Obama is back with another challenge to the foreign policy orthodoxy. (His willingness to attack Pakistan and his ruling out of a nuclear attack to eliminate terrorists are two others.)

This time, it's about Cuba. Obama stated a position in a Miami Herald op-ed that makes sense but doesn't take into account the political world's customary set of panderings. Members of the Cuban exile community that has huge sway in Florida politics take a hard line against the island nation, and any politician who hopes to win the Sunshine State usually follows their lead. They want to cut off or heavily restrict remittances and travel to Cuba, so as to kill Castro's regime by a slow strangulation. Obama said that he wants to ease restrictions, so Cubans in the U.S. can visit their relatives on the island, and send money home if desired.

Hillary Clinton and the Republicans, who all support the status quo, attacked Obama for his position, arguing that it is borne out of naiveté and that it illustrates the lack of strength and seriousness that makes the Illinois senator unfit for the role of Commander-in-Chief. Bill Richardson, Chris Dodd, and Dennis Kucinich, however, all said they agree with Obama in the wake of his Herald op-ed.

Stuff like this is getting Obama called gaffe-prone (see Hannity and Mitt Romney in this video), but in reality these aren't traditional faux pas; he's just refusing to accept conventional wisdom. Can you win a presidential election when you are frequently at odds with the think tanks, most of Congress, the powerful interests, and the status quo? Well, he was right on the Iraq War, and all those folks were wrong... What do you think?

http://www.motherjones.com/mojoblog/archives/2007/08/5264_obama_on_cuba_a.html

Cuba's foreign minister applauds Obama stance on sanctions
Wed Aug 22, 2007 3:31PM EDT

http://www.reuters.com/article/newsOne/idUSN2244134320070822

[Karmadillo]

16. Stein mistakenly implies Clinton is against US Cubans sending money to their relatives

on the island. This is incorrect.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/realclearpolitics/20070822/cm_rcp/clinton_takes_the_bait_on_cuba

<edit>

Rival Sen. Hillary Clinton said she would continue the Bush administration's hard-line stance, for the most part. Clinton's campaign said she agrees that exiles should be able to freely send money to their relatives but said she does not favor ''any wholesale, broad changes'' to the travel restrictions until Fidel Castro falls. Clinton did vote with Obama in 2005 -- unsuccessfully -- to ease restrictions on family travel in ``humanitarian cases.''

more...

The writer also states Clinton attacked Obama for his Cuba stand and said it made him unfit to be commander-in-chief. I haven't seen this anywhere. Do you (or Stein) have a link to support the claim?

I hope you'll respond in kind regarding the OP. I think it makes a number of good points about the failed Cuba policy and how Obama's position is actually timid (albeit, slightly less timid than Clinton's).

[AtomicKitten]

17. here:

* snip *

Clinton, the New York senator and Democratic front-runner, issued a statement reiterating her support for the current policy toward Cuba, adding, "Until it is clear what type of policies might come with a new government, we cannot talk about changes in the U.S. policies toward Cuba."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/08/21/AR2007082101511.html

and

* snip *

"She supports the embargo and our current policy toward Cuba, and until it is clear what type of political winds may come with a new government -- if there is a new government -- we cannot talk about changes to U.S. policy," Clinton spokesman Mo Elleithee said.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/realclearpolitics/20070822/cm_rcp/clinton_takes_the_bait_on_cuba

more opinion:

Obama Strikes Back

25 Jul 2007 05:27 pm

In an apparent outbreak of good news for John Edwards, the Obama-Clinton spat seems to be escalating today rather than declining, with the Senator saying "First of all, what is irresponsible and naïve is to have authorized a war without asking how we were going to get out. And I think Senator Clinton still hasn't fully answered that issue. The general principle is one that, I think, Senator Clinton is wrong on. And that is, if we are laying out preconditions that prevent us from speaking frankly to these folks, then we are continuing Bush-Cheney policies, and I am not interested in continuing that."

One thing I'd note here is that the thing Clinton actually said during the debate struck me as fairly reasonable. Then again, so did what Obama said. Her campaign's behavior since then -- trying to make big political hay out of Obama's alleged weakness, seeming to reverse her previous position on the direct talks issue, etc. -- has been pretty problematic. And it's worth saying that she actually did this before, attacking Obama after an earlier debate for having said that he would respond to a terrorist attack by first organizing emergency relief, and then second assessing intelligence to see who was responsible. According to Clinton's campaign, the "correct" answer was to immediately call for war (against whom?)

What this says about Clinton's actual foreign policy beliefs, I couldn't it. It does, however, obviously reflect a certain set of beliefs about politics -- specifically that more militarism is always better -- which happen to be the exact same set of beliefs that helped drive so many Democratic elected officials to duck and cover during the initial drive for war. To get the foreign policy right, you need on some level to have someone willing to challenge the hawkish political box. Clinton isn't just failing to do that, she's going way out of her way to re-enforce it.

http://matthewyglesias.theatlantic.com/archives/2007/07/obama_strikes_back.php

[Karmadillo]

18. That doesn't really address my questions.

Stein still appears mistaken about Clinton's support for Cubans in the US being able to send money home. ALso, the quotes don't seem to support Stein's claim Clinton attacked Obama. These just show her disagreeing with him (not that she disagrees with him all that much).

[AtomicKitten]

19. and we have now gone full circle --

It's OPINION which is sometimes upfront as is the piece you posted, but too often comes in the form of an interpretation of facts otherwise known as crap journalism - the grease that keeps the political commentary machine rolling.

People often post commentary/opinion as something that punctuates their own POV. The internets provide a plethora of material for our consumption. It is up to us to be discerning in that endeavor.

I also don't read blogs. The information I might get there can be obtained elsewhere and I really don't want to go down the rabbit hole led by someone who is not necessarily right but very convincing.

Ultimately we end up deciding for ourselves, as it should be.


Cheers.

[Karmadillo]

22. Well,

it's actually a question of the facts that support the opinion. The OP had accurate facts and drew reasonable conclusions. The link by Stein had inaccurate facts which tend to lead to inaccurate conclusions. We decide for ourselves (ideally, anyway, although more than a few people allow others to decide for them), but we decide best, I'm guessing, when we have a fairly tight grasp on the facts underlying the issue.

Best wishes.

[nevergiveup]

9. You do realize that the Chicago Tribune

is one of the few large national newspapers that endorsed Chimpy in 2004. The Tribune always has great ammunition and terrific negative spins if you want to bash a Democrat. Congratulations on your great find.

[Karmadillo]

13. If this is a bash, please point out the incorrect facts or unsupported

conclusions. Please don't use any mainstream media sources who have aided and abetted the Bush dictatorship (that includes the New York Times and the Washington Post and CNN and lots of other sources) since you don't want that sort of thing polluting DU.

Edit: changed "exclude" to "include". I shouldn't eat and type at the same time.

[illinoisprogressive]

23. the article is saying that unlike how others try to spin it, Obama's FP in common sense.

[killbotfactory]

26. It's a good first step

Our policy towards Cuba is idiotic.

The embargo/blockade should be lifted, altogether, but I don't believe any politician with a chance in hell of winning the presidency is going to say so.