The Cold War continues to rage in one last place in the world -- and that is between the United States and Cuba. It makes no sense for a democratic American government to unconstitutionally inhibit the travel of its own citizens to Cuba -- when it has embraced China and Vietnam and is on the way to normalizing relations with North Korea.

One of the protectors of the status quo and a failed American embargo of Cuba is Lincoln Diaz-Balart, one of two Diaz-Balart brothers currently serving as members of the Florida Congressional delegation.

Lincoln and his brother are nephews by former marriage of Fidel Castro -- and any scant investigation of the battle lines in the US-Cuba standoff will show the situation to be something of a nasty, Kentucky-style family spat.

But things are changing. Some of the elders who served on the board or as senior staff of the hawkish Cuban American National Foundation have defected from the pro-embargo Miami cartel against Cuba. Younger generation Cuban-Americans have also departed from the strident position of some of their elders.

And now there is news that Lincoln Diaz-Balart is underperforming in his fundraising and that the popular former Hialeah Mayor Raul Martinez is gaining some ground in unseating Lincoln, who has too frequently harmed American national interests by not using his influence and networks to change the course of US-Cuba relations rather than promoting a feud that serves only the interests of a small group.

I'm glad to see Raul Martinez putting pressure on him -- and this blog plans to watch this race closely as it may be the first time in a long time that a popular Democrat with more enlightened views on where to take US-Cuba relations might unseat one of the most recalcitrant embargo promoters in Congress.

-- Steve Clemons

My friend Dave Meyer -- one of DC's best political researchers and a co-conspirator on a number of projects with me -- browsed through the scorecard that the National Journal used to produce the result that Senator Barack Obama was the most liberal member of the Senate in 2007.

Just for the record, I do think that Barack Obama is more liberal than Hillary Clinton -- but that said, I don't think that should be considered a negative.

However, Meyer discovered only two scored votes where Obama took the 'liberal position' and Clinton took the 'conservative'.

As Meyer wrote to me:

The first was Joe Lieberman's S.Amdt. 30 to S.Amdt. 3 to S.1 The Amendment was "To establish a Senate Office of Public Integrity." Here's the roll call of the 27-71 vote.

Joining Obama on the 'liberal' side -- meaning the side in support of Joe Lieberman's amendment -- were Republicans Susan Collins, Olympia Snowe Chuck Grassley, and John McCain.

The second was Jeff Bingaman's S.Amdt. 1267 to S.Amdt.1150 to S.1348, the Immigration Reform bill. The Amendment was "To remove the requirement that Y-1 nonimmigrant visa holders leave the United States before they are able to renew their visa." Here's the roll call of the 41-57 vote (60 votes needed to pass, so it failed by 19).

Joining Obama on the 'liberal' side were Richard Shelby, Chuck Hagel, and Tom Coburn.

What is interesting and not highlighted by Dave Meyer is that Hillary Clinton had a vote on the Bingaman amendment that would have put her at odds with the Hispanic vote -- and Obama in line with the generally pro-immigrant Hispanic voters. That's a bit of a switch.

-- Steve Clemons

At least thus far, the coalition partner's in Ehud Olmert's current government seemed poised to remain where it is, even after the release of the Winograd Report -- which criticizes the government for its actions and decision-making in the Lebanon War.

I strongly support President Bush's efforts to get some kind of deal track set between Abbas and Olmert on a negotiated two-state solution between Israel and Palestine. In the current climate, Olmert is probably the best leader Israel has, perhaps other than Foreign Minister Livni, who might be able to deliver politically on a peace arrangement.

There are a lot of obstacles that have to be overcome in the next 11 months, but at least the Winograd Report is in the past now.

-- Steve Clemons

Members of the global steel cartel used to set steel prices at the Duquesne Club where I enjoyed an interesting evening tonight with board members and donors of the World Affairs Council of Pittsburgh. My task was to outline some of the fault lines in foreign policy and how this fits into the various campaigns.

I had a great evening with an informed crowd -- but it is a challenge to discuss all of this without getting overly complex, and mired in detail that many who are not foreign policy junkies don't follow. Still, it was great to participate in an exchange and hear the serious questions posed by people not into this 24/7 but who take the challenges now seriously.

Tomorrow I'm meeting students and then doing a World Affairs Council lunch in Pittsburgh before returning to Washington.

Then the day after (Friday) between 11:00 am and 11:30 am EST, I will be chatting with Denver's national public radio station, KGNU, about the various economic proposals of the campaigns which are still standing. The station has live streaming over its site and shows can be downloaded for later listening.

-- Steve Clemons

I'm not sure of this, but my hunch is that Zalmay Khalilzad is probably the highest level Muslim in the Bush administration, and he's brought a skill set of diplomatic dexterity to the Ambassadorial position at the United Nations vacated by John Bolton.

Various UN watchers, international diplomats, and even other colleagues of his inside the White House see that Khalilzad has bolstered America's position and credentials at the United Nations.

But now someone in the White House (and I have a short list of who it might have been) is sniping at Ambassador Khalilzad in a manufactured controversy over Khalilzad sitting beside Iran's foreign minister at a World Economic Forum meeting captured in a YouTube clip.

America negotiated with Iran in stabilizing Afghanistan. America has negotiated with Iran in many different arenas. For one of John Bolton's White House pals to be pounding on Khalilzad for sitting next to Iran's Foreign Minister seems petty.

I have since learned from a source familiar with the Davos meeting that Khalilzad was originally not part of this Iran-focused World Economic Forum meeting and was added at the last moment by the session moderator. That may account for the lack of diplomatic management of panel seating.

Khalilzad's spokesman, Richard Grenell, is quick to point out that Khalilzad and Iran Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki didn't shake hands or meet separately. Grenell told Helene Cooper of the New York Times that Khalilzad was engaged in "just a multilateral conversation with the moderator."

Whatever the truth here, it does seem to me that Khalilzad is positioning himself as an engagement guy, though some close to him assure me that he is not working to undermine America's current "no high level diplomatic contact" posture toward Iran (though I wish he was).

One of the other oddities here is that Condoleezza Rice has not swatted Khalilzad for this seating arrangement/faux pas -- as she did Jay Lefkowitz recently for his comments about North Korea's nuclear program at an AEI event.

The engagers seem to be nudging forward as the pugnacious nationalists in the administration snipe -- but seriously, to go to the New York Times with a seating complaint is quite petty.

One wonders how long the Ambassador will stay in this administration. He seems to be better appreciated by the Davos crowd actually than his colleagues in the White House.

-- Steve Clemons

The Afghanistan Study Group -- co-chaired by General Jim Jones and former Ambassador Thomas Pickering will release its report today in an unusual event in the Senate Dirksen Building.

The Pickering/Jones Afghanistan Study Group report will be issued along with two other Afghanistan reports also to be released today by the Strategic Advisors Group of the Atlantic Council and the National Defense University. The Afghanistan Study Group was launched by the Center for the Study of the Presidency after the completion of the Iraq Study Group report which it also helped sponsor.

Senators John Kerry (D-MA) and Norm Coleman (R-MN) will host the meeting at 2 pm today in Room 419 of the Senate Dirksen Building.

Speakers at the meeting will include Center for the Study of the Presidency CEO David Abshire, General James L. Jones, Atlantic Council President Frederick Kempe, Ambassador Thomas Pickering, and CSIS Senior Advisor Harlan Ullman.

According to the press release, the reports. . .

. . .concur that without prompt actions by the U.S. and its allies, the mission in Afghanistan may fail -- causing severe consequences to U.S. strategic interests worldwide, including the war on terrorism and the future of NATO. The U.S. cannot afford to let Afghanistan continue to be the neglected, or forgotten, war.

I won't be able to attend this today as I'm heading to a forum in Pittsburgh -- but wanted to highlight for others.

-- Steve Clemons

First of all, the Democrats as a party scored big in Florida. Turnout was huge among Democrats -- just truly impressive in a state that knew that it was being neglected by Democratic campaigners for moving the date of its primary ahead of February 5th.

Second, Hillary Clinton -- despite those who say it didn't matter -- scored a win that matters. To some degree, Florida neutralizes the momentum Obama achieved in South Carolina and gets both back to a position where they both have tail winds going into February 5th.

Third, John McCain has now won New Hampshire, South Carolina, and Florida. Giuliani is out and giving his loyalty oath to McCain tomorrow morning. Romney is still in -- but he's going to be struggling going into Super Tuesday.

Still much farther to go to know who the finalists will be.

-- Steve Clemons

This is just a great clip on what it's all about. To paraphrase Russ Feingold, it's about the end of liberty. . .

Thanks to Matt Stoller for sending.

-- Steve Clemons

When John McCain lost in 2000 to President Bush, his followers were left to wander in the wilderness during President Bush's first term. They had chosen the wrong horse and Bush's loyalty-obsessed handlers wanted to make the McCain team pay. By the time the second term came around, there was some loosening but not much.

There are stories percolating now that some Dem campaigns are telling others -- "you are with us or you are against us;" "if you help X, then you are dead to us. . .you are nothing;" "you will get no job -- no breaks whatsoever if you help X."

On the Republican side, I've been told by some helping one of the two governors that McCain's team has offered threats that are staggering and at one level, hard to believe -- but I know in at least one case, it happened.

This is bad news folks. If confronted about these kinds of behaviors, I'm sure that all of the candidates would individually disavow them. People could even be fired if they were recorded or reported in any manner that was beyond dispute.

But frankly, the country needs to have the kind of election it is having -- with no heir apparents, no slam dunks, and lots of debate and discussion.

The final four look to me to be Romney, McCain, Clinton and Obama. All sides need to be respectful -- and each needs to understand that very decent people with different frames of reference are trying ot make an important choice about who the next president should be. Let them do it -- and respect differences in a civil way.

No one should be threatened or penalized or brow-beaten or harassed to support one candidate over another. Those are tactics deployed by thug regimes -- not America, or at least not the America I want to live in.

-- Steve Clemons

Seven minutes and seven seconds. . .

For those interested, here is a shorter version -- about three and a half minutes long:

-- Steve Clemons

I just had an interesting meeting with a prominent and thoughtful national security expert in Washington. I can't go into any of the details of the meeting, but I am intrigued with the calculation that at least one serious, non-ideological pragmatist in foreign policy is making.

This person's sense is that John McCain and Hillary Clinton would both be the wrong choices for the country. McCain, he/she said, does not have the temperament for the presidency -- and doesn't listen to others and thinks he has most of the answers.

Hillary Clinton too, this person said, brings a group of retainers and pols who think they've done it all before -- and don't understand that tomorrow's challenges are more serious and more complex than any of us have perhaps seen in our lifetimes. According to this policy intellectual, Hillary Clinton's experience led her to affirm the Kyl/Lieberman IRGC amendment, which could have very well been a loophole for another war.

This commentator -- who would not go on the record -- believes that both McCain and Clinton are almost looking for a fight, a contest of wills internationally, to establish their bona fides as strong national security presidents.

But he/she said what was impressive about Obama and Romney is that they both seem to listen, to survey the landscape of perspectives, and judiciously work through the problems. This person has been as put off as I have been by the gut and mystique campaign that some of Obama's followers have been offering in support of him -- though I think it undermines Obama's credibility.

In fairness, I think that both McCain and Clinton have advisers to whom they listen and that they are well qualified and experienced. But the very real challenge for both is that they seem not to have a national security plan or foreign policy vision that would be different than that of President Bush's team.

Continuity of our current foreign policy direction will be highly destructive to America's already faltering global position.

But while I feel it necessary to expose faults and weaknesses in all of the candidates -- particularly in both the Obama and Clinton profiles -- I think it is interesting that a hard-edged, unsentimental national security expert I highly respect sees the strength of open-mindedness in Obama and Mitt Romney.

More later.

-- Steve Clemons

Someone forwarded me an email to take this American Public Media quiz that would select my preferred candidate based on my policy preferences. It's a very appealing approach to abstract away personalities and nuance and purport to objectively measure candidates simply on the issues. And it appears to be quite popular with 11570 responses last I checked.

But like all empirical research, there's the inevitable mediation of data that injects a set of assumptions, personal interpretations, and delimitation of options, all of which can problematize such a test. And I happened upon a fairly significant one in this test when it came to the candidate's positions on Iran.

The prompt stated:

If you were the commander in chief, would you declare that you will not allow Iran to become a nuclear power and would use any means -- specifically military action, if diplomacy is not successful -- to stop it?

Being the decline-ist, defeatist, apologist I am (my friends attest that I always manage to rationalize the fly in my soup), I prefer not to open up a third front by way of war with Iran.

According to the test, the candidates who appeared to agree with me were Clinton, Edwards, Huckabee, and Paul. But I was surprised to find that Obama was not on that list and instead grouped with McCain, Romney, and Giuliani (all of whom have considered the option of a tactical nuclear first-strike).

It's particularly intriguing as Clinton is generally regarded as more hawkish on Iran, especially after her Kyl-Lieberman IRGC vote, and has cast Obama's statements about negotiations with allies as signs of naivete. Obama, on the other hand, is surrounded by and has been praised by a set of foreign policy realists (including Zbigniew Brzezinski and Sen. Chuck Hagel) who were pushing back against the Iran hawks even before the declassified NIE.

Moreover, Obama's statements, featured on page one of the New York Times in November of 2007, suggest he's gone to greater lengths than Clinton to detail his diplomatic strategy with Iran -- particularly dropping conditions as a precursor to negotiations as well as shedding the counterproductive regime change language (and policy), both of which inhibit an eventual strategic rapprochement.

Curious about this seeming mischaracterization, I decided to probe further. The test not only shows you how each candidate scores with you on each issue, but also goes offers a tab explaining why they are coded a certain way along with a hyperlink to the hard evidence, in the case of Clinton and Obama's Iran positions, a debate transcript.

For Obama, it states:

ANSWER OPTION: Yes

CANDIDATE'S POSITION: At a debate on 9/26/07, Obama said, "I make an absolute commitment that we will do everything we need to do to prevent Iran from developing nuclear weapons. One of the things we have to try, though, is to talk directly to Iran, something that we have not been doing. And, you know, one of the disagreements that we have on this stage is the degree to which the next president is going to have to engage in the sort of personal diplomacy that can bring about a new era in the region. And, you know, that means talking to everybody. We've got to talk to our enemies and not just our friends."

For Clinton, it simply reads:

ANSWER OPTION: No

CANDIDATE'S POSITION: Asked by Tim Russert at a debate on 9/26/07 whether Israel would be justified in a nuclear strike against Iran, Mrs. Clinton said, "Well, Tim, I'm not going to answer that..."

Somehow, not answering is interpreted as being against military action on Iran. But more importantly, that answer was given when Russert asked whether Israel would be justified to take military action against Iran (there was no suggestion of a "nuclear strike"). And this was in the context where Clinton was justifying and supporting Israel's pre-emptive strike on a Syrian facility.

APM or Minnesota Public Radio ought to have another look at this to square it with the seemingly contradictory statements.

I suspect the Obama campaign will not be happy with the mischaracterization of his position on Iran when that is what he touts as one of his significant departures. And I'll bet the Clinton campaign -- trying to sell their candidate as the seasoned veteran with years of foreign policy experience -- would also be unhappy with the impression this leaves that she made the politically naive mistake of taking military options off the table.

-- Sameer Lalwani

Tomorrow (Wednesday) at 2:30 pm, Treasury Secretary Hank Paulson will be speaking to the Real Estate Roundtable's State of the Industry Meeting. According to a press release, he will discuss the state of the U.S. economy and the fiscal growth package.

I highly recommend that people watch the first five minutes (and more if you can handle the sound problems -- as the entire panel was stunningly good) of the New America Foundation event video above. During his comments, economist David Hale said that during the early stages of the subprime loan crisis, Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke called Hank Paulson 85 times (at 4:05 in the video). Hale said that Bernanke was calling to understand the crisis unfolding because Paulson had helped create the crisis.

Hale's other commentary about the Fed being late to action, not seeing this coming, of sending mixed signals about whether it would raise or lower rates -- is also fascinating to be reminded of. This event took place on November 30, 2007 -- and the fact that Hale, James K. Galbraith, and Zachary Karabell got so much right then in their criticism of the Fed and the Bush administration's policies deserves note.

BUT TOMORROW, someone at the event really should ask Paulson what some of the bullet points were that he shared with Bernanke in those 85 phone calls.

-- Steve Clemons

. . .if not in politics (he says facetiously).

The Washington Post has just launched a new website, The Root, which will attempt to provide a portal for all things cultural and political related to the African-American community. Here is a video intro.

From the Washington Post's announcement:

Conceived by Donald Graham, Chairman of The Washington Post Company and Henry Louis Gates Jr., the Alphonse Fletcher University Professor at Harvard and Director of the W.E.B. Du Bois Institute for African and African American Research, The Root will feature penetrating, lively commentary on political, social and cultural issues, and will showcase the breadth and depth of viewpoints currently shaping black culture. The site will also feature multimedia including slideshows and videos interviews.

"This is an historic endeavor. The Root is one of the world's first web-based magazines dedicated to reporting and commenting upon the interests, concerns and achievements of African Americans and people of African descent throughout the world," said Gates, Editor in Chief of The Root. "Since 1827, black journalists have dreamed of creating a national black newspaper and since W.E.B. Du Bois created The Crisis Magazine in 1910 and John H. Johnson created Ebony in 1945, black people have demonstrated a profound devotion to magazines targeted to their aspirations, dreams and challenges. The Root fulfills both of these goals and through the power of the Internet creates a truly interactive community."

In addition to Gates, Lynette Clemetson joins The Root as Managing Editor from The New York Times. Previously an award-winning national and foreign correspondent for Newsweek magazine, Clemetson has covered race, ethnicity and shifting demographics both in the United States and abroad. Terence Samuel, a top political reporter formerly of U.S. News & World Report and AOL Black Voices, will serve as Deputy Editor of The Root. Associate Editor for the site will be Natalie Hopkinson, former Assignment Editor for The Washington Post's Outlook section.

"The Root resists the notion that there is -- or ever was -- such a thing as a monolithic black community. The Web site will be a forum for true conversation, celebrating the rich mix of voices, issues and points of view that bring nuance and complexity to the black experience. And while the site is committed to topics of special interest to blacks, it is a destination for anyone interested in the dynamic link between history and our collective future," says Clemetson.

Should be interesting to watch how this develops.

-- Steve Clemons

I have friends now addicted to clicking this over and over and over again.

-- Steve Clemons

I just did a video log of my reactions to President Bush's speech last night and will post in a bit -- but my quick bullet point response to the evening included these items:

1. This was Bush's least memorable speech because it may have been his least stridently partisan.

2. On issues of climate change, education, and supporting our military forces with the tools and equipment they need -- Bush has clearly adopted much of the rhetoric of the Democrats. He urged argent action on climate change, even though he popped in some uncomfortable zingers -- like a push on nuclear (which he did with a grin) and a critique of developing nations by saying "no free rides" if we are all going to do our part in cutting greenhouse gases.

3. While his speech didn't have much sizzle, he did profile highly two accomplishments that I think will be remembered by historians as his legacy. Tax cuts and faith-based initiatives. Blurring the lines between religion and government is something I don't support -- but both parties are engaged in this, and Bush will get credit over time for institutionalizing a faith-obsessed trend that probably began with Jimmy Carter and was given a big push by Bill Clinton -- but which George W. Bush made an Olympics sport,

4. The full chamber support that Dems and Republicans gave Bush on Iraq shows to some degree what a seductive guy Bush can be at times. He has convinced Congress that America's goals in Iraq are being met because of the decline in violence and the seeming success of the surge. First of all, I don't buy the outlines of this success if we are achieving results by empowering some Sunni tribal, mafioso-like thugs who detest democracy as well as their fellow-Shiite brethren. But secondly, the surge was supposed to be a tool to reach a political outcome -- not an end in itself, justified within its own context. Bush and Congress were applauding a tactic last night -- not commenting on our strategic success or failures.

5. On Israel/Palestine, which Bush called recklessly the Holy Land, I was pleased to see Bush emphasize the importance of a deal in his speech. He didn't outline how we were going to get to success -- and the absence of some key players in the negotiations process practically assures future convulsions and preempts success -- but still, I'm glad Bush touched on the subject.

Interestingly, when the White House sent out its "State of the Union Highlights" which I posted yesterday evening, Israel/Palestine peace was not on the list.

6. The President mentioned his concerns about genocide and Sudan -- at which point Nancy Pelosi jumped out of her seat clapping strongly and loudly. In contrast, Cheney sat for a bit -- unsure if he should stand or not -- which he finally did.

7. There are many other critiques I could offer -- particularly the absence of a comprehensive global vision of any kind. His cliched and tired comments about "supporting freedom in countries from Cuba and Zimbabwe to Belarus and Burma" was just odd and seemed like a check-off strategy for nations that needed to be mentioned. In the case of Cuba, opening up travel -- a Constitutional right of Americans that their government has robbed from them -- would do more to promote awareness and new possibilities of freedom than the administration's failed approach to US-Cuban relations.

8. The oddest thing I saw last night occurred before the speech when Hillary Clinton walked into the chamber and began shaking hands with various Members of Congress sitting around Ted Kennedy and Barack Obama, who themselves were seated together. Kennedy graciously shook Hillary Clinton's hand as did everyone else there -- with the exception of Barack Obama, who just turned away.

I haven't decided whether this slight prickliness that Obama continues to exhibit -- of turning away from her, of pursing his lips as if furious, of reluctantly saying as he did one night in a debate about Clinton "you're likable enough" -- is something I like or not. I want to see some of the more savage and tough-minded qualities of Obama that the Clintons seem to be so good at.

But still the Clintons will shake hands with political rivals like Kennedy.

And Obama -- who says that he is willing to talk to dictators and thugs around the world (something I support) -- seems unwilling, at least last night, to engage Hillary Clinton unless compelled.

-- Steve Clemons

I haven't seen President Bush's speech yet -- just highlights -- though about to watch it tonight. Wolf Blitzer, though, just said that Bush revisits the theme of the "axis of evil" tonight.

Mistake.

Mike Huckabee, responding to Blitzer, just said that we should be pursuing an "Axis of Opportunity" -- not obsessing about an "Axis of Evil." And Huckabee said that the real state of the union is "troubled."

More soon.

-- Steve Clemons

According to Andrew Malcolm, Rudy Giuliani dropped a hint that he might drop out of the race -- and then bounced back to say he'd win Florida.

Dems will miss Guiliani I think. He was the best hope that they had of a relatively easy win in November. All of the other candidates -- from Huckabee (who won't win) to McCain and Romney -- are far tougher for either Clinton or Obama.

-- Steve Clemons

This evening, in about 20 minutes, I'll be chatting with Terrence McNally on KPFK Pacifica Radio's Free Forum with Terrence McNally. I'll be up between 8:20 and 8:30 PM EST. Sorry for the late notice.

Just before me, Tom Hayden -- who endorsed Obama today -- will be talking about the elections. After my segment, Mark Weisbrot will be talking about the economy.

-- Steve Clemons

The State of the Union address is a stuffy affair to watch -- unless one is lucky enough to be sitting in the gallery (which I did one year when Bill Clinton was President).

The President often tries to make a point by pointing up at the gallery at some hero, or foreign leader, or wife of some fallen person, or a businessman that deserves recognition for selflessness.

I've already commented on one person on the President's guest roster tonight, but here is the entire list of Presidential guests -- most all of them there to underscore a point in the President's priorities: