The Cuba Factor

Via Mark Kleiman, Rodger Payne rounds up the several respects in which Barack Obama has outlined a more sensible Cuba policy than has Hillary Clinton. He's not been willing to move toward full sensibleness, but Clinton has indicated that she'll take a full-on "whatever CANF wants" approach to the issue. Somewhat similarly, while Obama's hardly been a saint on Israel-Palestine issues, he's at least managed to make AIPAC somewhat uncomfortable with his approach.

This is how it goes down the line on foreign policy issues -- there are no yawning gaps between Clinton and Obama, but across a broad range of subjects Obama has positioned himself substantively better, while Clinton has been very cautious about challenge any aspects of entrenched conventional wisdom. To me, ultimately, that's what my preference for Obama is about. I find the cult a little creepy, too.

Comments

That characterization of Obama supporters is unfair.. People who think Obama supporters are a cult are elitist jerks who do not want normal people engaged in the political progress.. People talk about reaching out but they really don't want to. They want to keep the power to themselves. Go back to worship the "Inevitable One".. You guys were telling us she was inevitable all last year..

Posted by Ann | February 7, 2008 3:14 PM

From the link:
"When I wrote my Monday post about voting for Obama I got several jokey emails from friends lamenting that I'd finally joined the cult ("Now you'll have to buy a Mac and start blogging about The Wire....")"
-------------
Hmmmm. I wonder what blogger they were making fun of????

Posted by Don Williams | February 7, 2008 3:24 PM

What brought me around to Obama was initially his views on Cuba. After all we have been pursuing embargo for 50+ years and what is the result? Nothing positive. And Communist China? We have pursued openness since Nixon and we are starting to see the cracks in the pavement in Beijing. Honestly if we opened the floodgates with Cuba and allowed imports and exports, allowed visa for all to travel there, the regime would crumble or radically change for the better within 10 years.

Posted by freddiemac | February 7, 2008 3:27 PM

"Somewhat similarly, while Obama's hardly been a saint on Israel-Palestine issues, he's at least managed to make AIPAC somewhat uncomfortable with his approach."

Translation: Senator Obama hasn't advocated forcing the State of Israel to go out of business, yet.

Posted by SLC | February 7, 2008 3:27 PM

"Obama will change the way politics is done forever." ...I quote from Drum's thread.

This is the quote that struck me from Geier's piece:

Mack wanted to drill home one of the campaign's key strategies: telling potential voters personal stories of political conversion. She urged volunteers to hone their own stories of how they came to Obama – something they could compress into 30 seconds on the phone.

"Work on that, refine that, say it in the mirror," she said. "Get it down."

She told the volunteers that potential voters would no doubt confront them with policy questions. Mack's direction: Don't go there. Refer them to Obama's Web site, which includes enough material to sate any wonk.

Don't ever discuss issues or policy, huh?

This is not a bottom-up cult, a few weirdo supporters. This is campaign designed as cult from top-down.

Posted by bob mcmanus | February 7, 2008 3:28 PM

Cult shmult. What do you think gets people to make phone calls to total strangers, or ring doorbells in neighborhoods or states they've never been to? And be persuasive? People need to be enthusiastic, and perhaps, a little less than realistic about their candidate. Otherwise they wouldn't make the effort to begin with.
A little respect for the troops please.

Posted by Bruce | February 7, 2008 3:35 PM

It shameful when Americans finally become engaged in politics the media elites find ways to discourage them by calling them names.. Some liberals and media types complain about government and Americans lack of involvement in it. But when normal people challenge the system they are called names.. Shame on you..

This is for you:
"First they ignore you; then they mock you; then they punish you; then you win." -Ghandi

Posted by Ann | February 7, 2008 3:39 PM

Yeah Bob,

They don't want to go into policy details in a thirty second phone call. Instead directing voters to a web site which does include policy details.

It MUST be a cult.

Much better for Democrats to have a candidate that they are simply resigned to, instead of actually enthusiastic about. That always seems to work out so well.

Posted by gbh | February 7, 2008 3:43 PM

Don't ever discuss issues or policy, huh?

Would you want hundreds of thousands of random folks who just walked in off the street representing policy positions to voters?

We've been holding our noses and voting for the least repulsive option for so many years now that political reporters are apparently bewildered to encounter voters who actually like the guy they're supporting. It must be a cult! Run for you lives!

Posted by J.B. | February 7, 2008 3:44 PM

The second-wave feminists supporting Hillary at all costs are creepier.

Posted by Jay | February 7, 2008 3:48 PM

Bring on the backlash. Can't believe it's you, too, Matthew. I guess you are just too cool for school. Should have seen it coming. Inspire a bunch of young somewhat idealistic followers, and all the cynics rise up to say, "No You Can't."

bob mcmanus, you are just about the worst cherry picker ever. Yeah, it's a cult b/c they tell their volunteers to refer folks to the website to read about Obama policy. Maybe that's b/c, you know, Obama's volunteers aren't all policy experts. I mean, seriously.

Don Williams -- you beat me to the punch. Kevin Drum's friend is clearly making fun of Mac-and-Wire-blogging Matthew! Maybe that's why Matthew is worried. Some people are thinking he's the cult leader!

Posted by bob | February 7, 2008 3:51 PM

"Would you want hundreds of thousands of random folks who just walked in off the street representing policy positions to voters?"

Yes. Politics is about issues, not personalities. And the proles may not be as adept as the pros, but in an ideal democracy, they get to play.

A candidate that doesn't want his supporters to discuss the issues, even incompetently, is very bad news.

Posted by bob mcmanus | February 7, 2008 3:51 PM

I also agree with Jay. All of the Hillary supporters I know may claim that it's due to policy differences but upon any scrutiny are basically ignorant on the issues and voting for her either b/c she's a woman or b/c of her husband.

Here's a serious policy difference from David Rees, author of Get Your War On:

Cluster bombs and landmines are particularly terrifying weapons that wreak havoc on communities trying to recover from war. They are fatal impediments to reconstruction and rehabilitation of agricultural land; they destroy valuable livestock; they disable otherwise productive members of society; they maim or kill children trying to salvage them for scrap metal.

Over 150 nations have signed the 1997 Mine Ban Treaty. It pains me that our great nation has not. But in the autumn of 2006, there was a chance to take a step in the right direction: Senate Amendment No. 4882, an amendment to a Pentagon appropriations bill that would have banned the use of cluster bombs in civilian areas.

Senator Obama of Illinois voted IN FAVOR of the ban.

Senator Clinton of New York voted AGAINST the ban.

Analysts say Clinton did not want to risk appearing "soft on terror," as it would have harmed her electibility.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-rees/clinton-obama-and-clust_b_84811.html

Posted by bob | February 7, 2008 3:55 PM

I'm sure each one of Hillary's phonebank volunteers can succinctly explain to callers why she voted for the Iraq War, bob mcmanus.

"Politics is about issues, not personalities." Right, I've seen tons of evidence for this theory in the past 10 or so presidential elections.

Posted by bob | February 7, 2008 3:58 PM

I have done plenty of Obama volunteering, and no one has ever told me that I should refer policy questions to Obama's website, and I've been entirely comfortable explaining his positions to undecided voters. Like someone suggested, I would love to ask Hillary volunteers to explain her war vote.

Posted by john doe | February 7, 2008 4:01 PM

If you really want to get creeped out just read some of the comments from Clinton supporters on this blog. The mental acrobats required to follow their logic would challenge both Rube and Jonah.

And yes, please can we please have a reasonable policy toward Cuba (oops, there goes Florida).

Posted by blindjoedeath | February 7, 2008 4:03 PM

Politics is about issues, not personalities.

Bullshit. I mean, really, are you so far gone that you believe that? You are talking about your HEAD OF STATE, not just some random legislator. What kind of personality they have is a life and death issue (see: Iraq). And as the symbol of the nation both to itself and others, what kind of image that person projects matters more than almost any conceivable policy. A President cannot actually do all that much -- but they can set the tone and context in which others can to a great many things.

And the idea that you want volunteers to be encouraged to wade into the weeds as surrogates for a candidate on policy issues just marks you as a political moron.

I just wish there weren't so many of your fellow travelers in positions of influence in the party.

Posted by nolaboyd | February 7, 2008 4:09 PM

As someone commented at Drum's site:

Neither Jake Tapper nor Joe Klein is worth paying any attention to.

They're the guys saying it has become cult-like. The stupidity is starting to piss me off. First journalists complain about record-setting low voting rates (as Gore Vidal has said, none-of-the-above wins everytime) and now for the first time (in my life at least) young people (and some old people) are getting excited and inspired and they're described as cult members.

So Obama is the establiment/cult-figure candidate? Huh? It's like the Clintons are throwing everything they can at Obama and hope something sticks.

People in a real cult are not connected to reality (sort of like in a religion) and Hillary's fans aren't connected to reality if they think she can beat McCain.

What you might have is conservatives staying home b/c they're disgusted with "liberal" McCain and the youth and blacks staying home b/c of Billary's cheap campaign tactics. Inspiring!

Obama actually did pretty well on Super Tuesday. And Hillary is loaning her campaign $5 million? Doesn't seem like a good sign.

Posted by Peter K. | February 7, 2008 4:16 PM

I'm glad I'm not the only who thinks these foreign policy differences matter. Another one that struck me as important arose during the debates, in relation to Pakistan. Hillary seemed to emphasize support of Musharraf no matter what whereas Barack seemed to be more in favor of pressing more strongly for democratic elections(hello Hillary, haven't we been here before with the Shah and Iran?).

Posted by kristi | February 7, 2008 4:18 PM

Peter K

Clinton has just as much a good chance to beat McCain.

As for the cult question the problem is that Obama has failed to focus on policy even though his positions are pretty strong. Just recently he released a sixty page document call a Blueprint for America, but because his campaign has failed to give anyone heads up about this document, you would never know such document exists. You can't blame people for thinking that there's a cult surrounding this guy,his followers always mouth all this unity talk without getting into substance. I know that there are Hillary supporters who can be fanatical as well but you cannot deny that she is a woman of substance and that she has the white and hispanic working class behind her. Whereas Obama's popularity has not broke into other core groups of the democratic party.

Posted by MGJ | February 7, 2008 4:29 PM

People used to think breaking the 4:00 mile was impossible and people who talked about doing it were crazy. Just because Obama supporters think there is the possibility of real progress doesn't make them cultists. The mile record is 3:43.13 today and the 13 people who have dropped Roger Bannister's then unthinkable 3:59.4 didn't get there by embracing cool detachment and cynicism. They got there by believing in themselves and working their ass off. Some cult.

Posted by joejoejoe | February 7, 2008 4:33 PM

Thanks, Bob, for posting the link regarding Obama's support of the ban on landmines. As a person who has seen first-hand the devastation caused by landmines in Vietnam and Cambodia I am so glad to see that Obama took this stand. I was already an Obama supporter but this makes me feel even more strongly about it. I wish Obama would advertise this point because I think it's an important distinction between he and Clinton.

MGJ...I agree that Obama should do more to highlight his positions in the weeks to come. Not only will this point out that he has actual given some thought to these issues, but will help to make contrast between himself and Hillary. So far, he has talked mostly about the past vote on Iraq(which is fine), but he should voice his future plans more(especially in regards to Darfur, Israel/Palestine peace process, Pakistan, Cuba, etc.). Especially in regards to the embargo on Cuba, now that the Florida vote is over! And let's not forget about Venezuela...let's make nice business deals and ask Chavez to sell us his oil on the cheap! Heh!

Posted by kristi | February 7, 2008 5:11 PM

Inspire a bunch of young somewhat idealistic followers, and all the cynics rise up to say, "No You Can't."

Say what you want, but when it comes to presidential campaigns, on this score the cynics have yet to be wrong.

Posted by Tyro | February 7, 2008 5:20 PM

As a fellow atheist, I share Wolcott's unease about cults. However, when you think about it, the POTUS is the closest verifiable thing to god out there. This is the person who literally has the power to destroy the world. It's no wonder that the lesser gods we install in opposition cave before his awesome power and that Hillary's voice rises in flushed crescendo each time she says she'll be the "President of the United States." No, that cults form around this is not surprising. What baffles me is why some cults get tagged as such and others don't.

Posted by matt | February 7, 2008 5:24 PM

bob - Thanks for the link to the cluster bomb thing. I hadn't known about that vote and will use it.

bob mcmanus - Usually I respect your thoughts (at least I think it's you) but you're wrong across the board on this comment thread. Even if I wish politics was about issues, it's not true.

SLC - Idiot. Every time I read a comment like yours I find I have to make an effort not to lower my opinion of Israel. Supporters like you make it more likely Israel won't last.

Posted by Mitch Schindler | February 7, 2008 5:47 PM

As an Obama supporter, it really drives me nuts, too, that our public enthusiasm for a candidate with plenty to recommend him is hyperbolized into cult membership. Of course, Godwin's law also really drives me nuts.

Anyhoo, the other day I heard three different Clinton supporters on NPR work "ready on Day One" into their responses to an interviewer's questions in exactly the same intonation. It was a lot more disturbing than the cheery, hopeful conversations I had with the folks handing out flyers with me on Super Tuesday.

Posted by moff | February 7, 2008 6:24 PM

Re Mitch Schindler

The State of Israel will be around long after Mr. Schindler and his pal Richard Steven Hack have shuffled off this mortal coil.

Posted by SLC | February 7, 2008 7:13 PM

The irony of the fundamentally fraudulent inspiration-substance dichotomy being pushed by certain folks is that it doesn't credit Clinton with having good policy ideas, it merely credits her with talking more about policy. In the end, it's a purely stylistic critique/defense.

Posted by RS | February 7, 2008 9:04 PM

SLC: "The State of Israel will be around long after Mr. Schindler and his pal Richard Steven Hack have shuffled off this mortal coil."

No, it won't, homes. It won't make it past another twenty or thirty years, if that - and I will.

And when I do, I'll make damn sure Israel doesn't.

And Josh Marshall can take that as "eliminationist" all he wants, I couldn't care less. The Zionist fucktards *offend* me - and that's not a prescription for longevity.

Of course, given the number of chimpanzee fucktards I'd like to off, Israel may find itself somewhat down the list - probably somewhere under the Federal Bureau of Prisons, for example. Not to worry - I'll get to them. Not a problem.

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | February 7, 2008 11:24 PM

Kristi: "he should voice his future plans more(especially in regards to Darfur, Israel/Palestine peace process, Pakistan, Cuba, etc.)."

Kristi has it right. Matt keeps repeating this crap over and over in every post - Obama vs Hillary, Obama is a little better. Rinse and repeat, ad nauseum.

Meanwhile, he ignores the real issue: that neither one of them knows anything or has any rational policy vis-a-vis Afghanistan, Iran, Pakistan, the so-called "War on Terror", the Israel-Palestinian issue, or the overall issue of US foreign policy.

Easy for him to ignore - since he's clueless on those subjects as well, not to mention unwilling to commit himself on any of them. Which is probably just as well, since when he does make a "substantive post", like he did on Afghanistan the other day, he makes a fool of himself.

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | February 7, 2008 11:30 PM

We aren't cultists, Matt. We are just free people who have seen the Truth. Once, we were caught in the same state as the rest of humanity, but Obama has shown us the way. He is the Luminous Beacon that guides our every step. The ODs (Obama Detractors) may attack us because they do not understand the Truth, and they attack what they do not understand. If they understood and knew what we know, they would recognize the error of their ways. Some ODs say that we are irrationally devoted and infatuated. In truth, it is the ODs who are irrationally devoted to the status quo, infatuated with the same old politics. Only we see things with the true clarity that our Luminous Beacon, Barack Obama, can provide, his illumination allowing us to see the Truth where previously we only saw illusions. Join us, and you shall be free.

Posted by Julian Elson | February 8, 2008 3:34 AM