I have a favorable view of the Bush administration, so if Obama is being honest this time, I wouldn’t mind it:
The Weekly Standard
HOLLIS: If I can ask one more question. Sort of a follow-up to comments you made yesterday. Will you meet one-on-one with Raul Castro and other leaders of the Cuban government?
OBAMA: Not immediately. But what I’ve said is that if we start low-level talks, and at the diplomatic levels, to explore areas of potential mutual interest, then that’s something we should continue. Our primary interest is making sure the people of Cuba are free. Freedom of religion, of press, travel, and to organize politically, and that would be the agenda. We would press them. If there appeared to be progress in the area of liberalization–as I’ve said repeatedly, I would be willing, if it is going to move the progress, to move forward, with any leader that is willing to consider these issues.
Obama’s maneuvering is fun to watch: temporarily the insurgent against the Democratic Party, then the MoveOn candidate, and now Bush, Again.
So when does he renounce his old positions on trade, capital gain taxes, and COIN?
Ignoring well wishes who urge him to name Hillary as his Vice President, Barack Obama faces a fight that keeps going…
Clinton launches new Fla., Mich. offensives – Kenneth P. Vogel – Politico.com
The new Florida and Michigan offensive will kick off in earnest today with three campaign events in South Florida â€“ though sheâ€™ll have to share the state with Obama, who begins a three-day campaign swing there â€“ and will likely also include campaigning in Michigan. Thatâ€™s in addition to an already circulating online petition and escalating campaign rhetoric casting Clinton as best-positioned to carry the two important big states in the fall against presumptive Republican nominee John McCain â€“ partly because of her fight against disenfranchising Democrats there.
In an intentional bit of symbolism, Clintonâ€™s three campaign stops will be in Palm Beach, Broward, and Dade counties â€“ the three jurisdictions where Democrats allege voters were disenfranchised during the 2000 presidential election.
Clinton campaign officials acknowledge the target audience for the offensive is not only voters but the superdelegates who will ultimately decide the nomination as voters and the party officials who will meet May 31 to effectively rule on the fate of the Florida and Michigan delegations.
Rumors of Hillary R. Clinton taking her fight to the convention are reasonable, considering that she is ahead in the popular vote. Obama proponents argue that this is true only if you include all 50 states, because Obama instructed Michigan to remove his name from the ballot. He did this because (a) he knew he would lose and (b) he trusted Howard Dean of the Democratic National Committee as a better fixer than Mark Brewer of the Michigan Democratic Party. This is true, but irrelevant: Obama’s reasons speak to his wisdom as a political strategist, but don’t negative the fact that Obama lost Michigan, as he knew he would.
Of course, as a supporter of George W. Bush, I see nothing wrong with the loser of the popular vote winning the contest.
In many ways, an Obama presidency is as close to Bush’s third term as we are likely to get.