Thanks!

Elections have consequences and Obama won.

“Cautious optimism” is fine with me as well. I do have to dial myself down some since I see so much more potential in Latin American allies. And it doesn't help that one of my best friends is from Brasil.

In the name of World peace, of course.

But one misstep by Obama could destroy the whole process.

And as far as the glass half full / glass half empty… I agree with you and mentioned that if one is against an Obama policy then one wouldn't be cautiously optimistic (or see the glass as half full).

I distrust those who always see the glass as half full as much as I distrust those who always see the glass as half empty when it comes to any politician. So I do fully appreciate that you give Obama credit where due and you speak up where you disagree. That's my point exactly…. It's what more people should do: both Obama supporters (who tend to be too lenient) and his detractors who generally are 100% against anything Obama does, even if it's a policy they supported under Bush.

And this is exactly why I think the Republican elected officials are failing us. Instead of offering reasonable arguments or proposals to address concerns you (or I) may have about something all the GOP leadership can do is blast Obama for his handling of the pirate situation (which we “won” anyway) or how Obama greeted some King or Queen. Or some such silly nonsense.

That's why I like your term, “cautious optimism” because it doesn't blindly buy into the idea that Obama will do whatever the issue at hand is, but neither does it say, “Obama will never do that.” If one agrees with Obama on an issue than I think it's fair to have cautious optimism because there's no guarantee it will be resolved how we want it to be resolved.

It's unfair to pretend that since SOME people are partisan hacks in their criticism of Obama, that no one who is skeptical of him on certain issues could possibly have a point.

But it is more than a little interesting that the same people who claim to have qualms about Obama's fiscal policies had no such objections to Bush's. If you recall, Bush also cut taxes and dramatically increased government spending. What us skeptics were told then was that tax cuts will pay for themselves because of increased economic activity and revenue. Apparently that theory only applies when a Republican is in office.

Stockboy hit this already in a different way, but Obama's interaction with Chavez are as much about the region than about U.S./Venezuela relations specifically. It seems very likely that at some point sooner or later that Chavez will reject such overtures. So be it. But this can be a success if it's clear to everyone that Chavez is rejecting friendship and not the U.S. doing so. The main problem right now is not that Venezuela has anti-American sentiments, but that it's spreading to other nations with leftist governments such as Bolivia and Ecuador. Perhaps a carrot approach to diplomacy can help bring those such govts back to being more friendly to the U.S. and leave Chavez on his own.

Of course, Venezuela is more important to the national interest than Bolivia, because of it's oil. And so perfect success would be perfect relations with all.

Now that's nothing new- probably every administration uses rosy projections when it suits them. But it is why it's silly to act as though no one should oppose his economic policies on that basis.

And then there's also the phoniness of calling a tax cut what is actually a tax credit to those who don't pay any federal income tax at all. He's shifting us much closer to the point at which half of all voters won't be paying any federal income tax, and a sizable number of them actually get paid by the government. Not a healthy sign for a democracy.

So, I hope you can acknowledge that I'm giving Obama credit exactly where I think it's due, and having a glass half full outlook where I think that's appropriate. But my glass isn't koolaid- so I'll also speak frankly when I think that a glass is half empty. It's unfair to pretend that since SOME people are partisan hacks in their criticism of Obama, that no one who is skeptical of him on certain issues could possibly have a point.

Respectfully, my answer is: AND? What does Ortega want the USA to do then? See you can rant, rave, loudly discuss many issues of the past. But what is the endgame? To continue to rant, rave, loudly discuss?

I would assume that Ortega

A) wants us to acknowledge our leadership and participation in the various bloodbath's that occurred during the eighties in Central America.

B) wants us to butt out of the internal affairs of his country and that of their neighbors.

C) and expects neither to happen.

Keeping in mind that Assume make an ass out of u and me.

but why exactly were we so intent on demonizing them?

Because Chavez had the balls to stand up to the US. Period. We don't take it very well when our client states tell us to get lost.

Yes, that's what I think and a very good way to sum it up.

What's interesting is that people either tend to see the glass as half full or as half empty when it comes to Obama.

For instance you said “cautious optimism” or seeing the glass as half full.

But then there are those anti-Obama people who perpetually see the glass as half empty. For instance dynaman50 seems convinced somehow that Obama will amend the constitution so the presidency can be a lifetime job. And others on the right say that Obama “will take away our guns” or that Obama “will” do this or “will” do that…. They tell the rest of American to “Just wait and see.”

During the campaign Obama said he would cut taxes and the right said that it was just campaign speech, that Obama would actually raise taxes. And when Obama won, the right continued to say the same thing, “Just wait and see, Obama will raise our taxes”. Now that Obama has actually reduced taxes the right can't even acknowledge it.

So I think “cautious optimism” is probably the best approach…. In the tax cut case above, I can understand why people might brush off Obama's promise as campaign rhetoric, but when he was elected I think people should have started to be “cautiously optimistic” that Obama would actually reduce taxes. Give him a chance to live up to his word. Which he did.

Obviously if one is against tax cuts (or some other issue that Obama is for) then one can't be cautiously optimistic.

Cautious optimism is the description of my current mood on it.

Obama IS popular in Latin America. Some politicians even changed their name to Barack Obama:

http://www.tressugar.com/2031381

(Though none won.)

So I think it's important to take the popularity of Obama in Latin American into account when discussing Chavez (or other leaders in the region) using his bully pulpit. If his people like Obama then he has to be more careful with his anti-US rhetoric (or drop it altogether). Or else those people may start to wonder why their leader is so against Obama, who is a symbol to them. After all there is a huge black population in some of those countries (and many of them face racism and are disenfranchised) and for an African-American to be elected the president of the most powerful country in the world is huge psychologically for them. As to the ethnic make-up of other countries…. the whole region really is a melting pot and very ethnically diverse. Just as Obama is part white and part black.

Some of the leaders in Latin America have to tread lightly until Obama establishes more of an identity and history with these people. For instance if Obama were to take Bush's attitude of “us v. them” then people would soon see Obama as just another US imperialist. But if Obama appears friendly, engaging, reasonable and open to true negotiation, then his power will grow in Latin America. I think Cuba is the biggest opportunity here. After decades of being ostracized by the imperialistic “white” power to the north, if Obama does open up normalized relations with Cuba that will go a LOOOOOOOONG way in legitimizing his character as someone willing to negotiate. It's hard for someone like Chavez to paint Obama as the demon if the Cuban situation improves.

So the democratically leaders in Latin America have to be very careful in dealing with Obama because many of their own constituents like him. At the moment. But that can change if Obama is not very careful.

I get the sense that these leaders are still at that “Let's wait and see what happens with Obama” stage…. And they're smart not to rile up anti-American sentiment at the moment.

IMO Obama does have a lot more power in Latin America than Bush ever had.

These countries may have their political leaders, but to them Obama is a symbol (of hope in this case) which is more powerful than an elected leader. I think the Latin American leaders see this, but it's something most in the US are not attuned to in Latin America.

Well, China DOES have an awesome military complete with nukes.

So part of treating countries harshly has to do with military power. It's easier to bully a country like Venezuela than a nuclear armed country. Iran did offer us help in the fight in the war on terror back in 2002 or 2003, but Bush turned around and labeled them as part of the axis of evil. I bet if they had nukes at the time Bush would not have been so rash. At any rate the US is the world's sole superpower so I don't understand why we need to “bully” or treat “harshly” other planets unless, as Bush did, it is an attempt to score political points in the US or as a prelude to more aggressive action against that country…. such as an invasion. Neither of which we, the US, should be doing. Of course if a country IS a threat to the US then we need to take the appropriate action.

Sorry, I just felt the need to throw in the military aspect. If Latin American leaders can stir up their people by painting the US as aggressive militarily (and it's easy to do, given our history in the region) then they will. It's less hard to do that when someone like Obama is the US President and he is about negotiation and inclusion, rather than the “us v. them” mentality that was in the WH the last eight years.