You know, DB, sometimes you astonish me.

Your series of fixes was surprisingly innovative and well-thought out.  I think some are flawed, some are unrealistic, but the very first one, “repeal the Patriot Act” in all its totality is VITAL to the cleaning out for the Botch fascist poison injected into our government.  Getting rid of the MCA as well goes hand in hand.

I’m not convinced that yanking out the knife we jammed into Iraq all at once is as wise as drawing it out slowly and attempting to staunch the bleeding as we do so.

And I sure don’t think Mexico would accept an oil futures price of $45/barrel. Maybe $80, but not $45.

However, I’m 100% in agreement of using rail. I even suggested that GM and Chrysler be bailed out only if they switch over the excess auto/truck capacity to rolling stock.  They did similar switches to military equip in WWII, why not now?

Without going on, I just want to thank you for a pair of posts that were interesting and thoughtful, even if I don’t agree with some.  I know I’m usually all over you like stink on a skunk, so…It’s sometimes a pleasure to be able to compliment someone you generally view as an opponent.  I don’t get to do it often.

Eugene, before you start getting so heavy handed with Chavez, perhaps it would serve you well to read a copy of Naomi Klein’s: “The Shock Doctrine - The Rise of Disaster Capitalism -
http://www.amazon.com/Shock-Doctrine-Rise-Disaster-Capitalism/dp/0312427999/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1240549730&sr=8-1

with a little backfil of: Negorponte - The Death Squad Ambassador. These are hardely trivial matters which stink quite a bit more than ‘sorded’ on the stench-meter.

Peace, Best Wishes and Hope

Oh what a dissapointment this article was.  Such a fan I’ve been of Mr. Robinson, but this certainly makes me feel I need to take a 2nd look at that admiration. 

What specifically would it have done for the United States had Obama given Chavez the ‘back of his hand,’ even metaphorically?  I do not believe Chavez’ intent was to be rude. 

I do not see Chavez as a Dictator (Dictators don’t legitimately win elections, and rarely bother with holding scam ones).  Nor do I see him as a tyrant.  Instead, I think he did a marvelous thing by taking the wealth of his country’s natural resources and using them to benefit the poor of Venezuela. 

And I don’t believe he is Anti-American so much as he was Anti-Bush, since Bush’s administration was in on trying to get him ousted. 

Truly, I cannot blame him for rallying others in Latin America to stand up to US imperialism there (yes, let’s be honest that this is what it is).  He is a Patriot to his homeland.  Who can blame him for that? 

I think he is a great leader who has done much for raising his country from poverty. 

I’m shocked this article came from the pen of Eugene Robinson. 

Pity..

Oh, BTW—-can the Panamanian and Colombian “free trade” agreements, too. NOt good for people there, not good for people here.

Oh, Eugene, I might have been able to post a disagreement with you and FOR Pres. Obama. save this one:...

“... Obama made clear that he intends no abdication of American leadership..”

Perhaps somewhere in the world they are “crying out for US leaderhip”, but, they certainly arent in Latin Am! Thats a small point, I know, but, I think it would behoove us to not think of ourselves as ‘leading the world” anymore. I dont think that the rest of the world does. So-called liberals need to get over their fear of Latin Am Socialism.

Gone unnoticed seems to be Evo Morales (Bolivia) hunger strike that went on for 18 days before that. There were people there besides Chavez and Ortega , you know.

That being said I think Chavez just surprised Obama. It was a photo op. He put out that remark about “not being blamed for things that happened when he was 3 ” or whatever…then, an idiot spokesperson for Pres. Obama said that “he wouldnt read it” because he “doesnt read Spanish”. I hope that the statement was not approved by Pres. Obama and that he will buy an English translation like I did….

RdV—thanks for more info on Davidow—I thought I recognized him..

“John F. Kennedy would have proceeded similarly, and while I think President Obama is too timid regarding US domestic policy, I applaud his efforts in Latin America and Europe and the Middle East.”

Jon—JFK? Can you say Bay of Pigs?

NANYC—Agree. I ordered the book 5 min after I saw Chavez hand it to him. Then it went to No 2 ( I think?) on Amazon, so i will probably have to wait for it…..Village Elder—Kudos , to Naomi Kleins’ “Shock Doctrine”!

Wow, I think I found a home here. Kudos to most here as I am impressed with the progressive direction being bolstered.
I found this most interesting from the article: “It should also be noted that Chavez has acquired his extraordinary executive powers—he obviously wants to be president-for-life—through the ballot box. Americans may not like him, but Venezuelans do—a majority of them, at least. However, it’s impossible to overlook his anti-democratic methods of silencing his critics and neutralizing any potential opposition. Even though he uses Venezuela’s oil to bolster the Castro regime in Cuba, Chavez is hardly a by-the-book socialist. He’s more of an old-style Latin American strongman, a caudillo, and that’s no model for the 21st century.”

I thought all of this criticism could be directed to our own failed 2 party “democracy.”
The concept of our having preselected candidates already committed to American exceptionalism expressed by our being taxed obscenely by the military industrial complex, which is our main cost “export” to the world, is a far worse “model for the 21st century” then a leader who gains his power from where he chooses to distribute his country’s main export; oil.

The WashPo and the NYT both played instrumental roles in trying to solidify the positions of the coup leaders who—with US support—tried to depose Chavez in ‘02.

Truthdig should be ashamed to publish this propaganda.

Should President Obama have refused to shake the hand of Hugo Chavez, or should he have made snide comments because Chavez gave him a book and suggested he read it?  No.  He should read the book.  We should all read the book.  Most educated people in Central and South America have read it, and it forms a critical part of their understanding of our country.  Why should the U.S. continue to be the most ignorant people and leaders when it comes to history?

Hugo Chavez is a leader of not only Venezuela but also much of South America.  You know why?  First, his country has oil so they are not the poor nation that the U.S. usually oppresses.  Second, he is telling other nations that if they stand together they can throw off the oppressive brutal control of the U.S. which has, generation after generation, used military and economic power to steal their resources, murder their patriots, and enslave their paper.  Chavez is the successor to Fidel Castro and is an inspiration to millions. 

Instead of berating him, maybe we should listen.  Instead of claiming that a book highly critical of generations of U.S. military and economic interventions in the area is an “offense,” maybe we should all read the book and learn something.  Or just Google:  U.S. interventions and South America.  It’s shocking.

Hugo Chavez handed President Obama a book written by Eduardo Galeano, a Uruguayan writer.  The book is titled Open Veins In Latin America: Five Centuries Of The Pillage Of A Continent.  Written in 1971, translated into English in 1973, the book has been reprinted many times and is considered by many people in Central and South America to provide an important analysis of the U.S. oppression of that region.  The author is widely respected among leftists and progressives in this country as well, and gave a fascinating interview a few years ago on Democracy Now.  His style may be dated, but the book contains important information that all Americans should know. 

Galeano provides a comprehensive analysis of the history of the region from the time of the conquistadores from Europe who invaded, slaughtered, plundered in their quest to steal gold and silver from the people of that area.  He also discusses the progression of structures imposed from the outside, including slave-based plantation agriculture, and the theft of important oil and minerals by the U.S. corporations.  He also notes the effect of U.S. control in sabotaging efforts of those countries to become economically independent. 

If the U.S. really wants to change, we need to face the truth about our history, acknowledge the harm we have caused, stop the military intervention, get out of the drug and weapons trade (and yes, the U.S. is deeply involved in profiting from the drug trade) and begin real reparations and community development programs.  People to people, community to community. 

The reason we have millions illegally entering our country is because their own countries have been destroyed, often through the involvement by the U.S. in supporting right-wing governments and death squads so that our corporations can continue to plunder the resources of the region. 

Let’s all read the book.  Let’s begin to imagine an “America” from south to north with cooperating nations working together for mutual benefit.  Instead of just continuing the war, gun and weapons dealing, death squads, coups, destabalization, slave labor, hunger, disease, despair that is the result of hundreds of years of U.S. policy towards Central and South America.  Let’s change.  Let’s start by reading the book and stop being so arrogant towards our neighbors to the south.

Is that satire, DWIGHTBAKER?

So, Mr. Robinson, you believe that Obama should have given, metaphorically speaking, the back of his hand to those leaders who displayed a critical attitude of US policy (and history) towards Latin America.  What are you really talking about?

Many of the comments here clearly explain why you are so wrong. What you are doing is perpetuating the notion that, in the end, the US is always right when confronted with heavy-duty, well-founded criticism.

I’m sure you mean well. My feeling is that, despite your accomplishments, perhaps you need to learn much more about other countries and cultures.  And, maybe, it is not so much about “learning” but about _understanding_. But I don’t blame you altogether. I just hope you realize that you are the product of a culture that is fundamentally unable to grasp the issue of US righteousness versus the rights of the rest of the world.

When slapped, slap back? Are you joking? Why resort to school-ground tactics? Aren’t we beyond eye-for-an-eye?

Ibett said:

“I think it is time for America to stand down, stay out of other countries business, tend to our business,”

The nature of capitalism is not to stand down but to intervene to protect the “national interest”, which is truthfully defined as the profit making machine of the owning class.

Capitalism,having the nature of a crack addict, cares not about civil rights by its very nature.

I just didn’t see it the way Robinson sees it. I did not see Obama treated with disrespect by Ortega and Chavez, and I was happy to see Obama treating them respectfully.

I must disagree with Mr. Robinson that President Obama should “slap back.”  Once again, President Obama took Jay Z’s advice and gave no importance to Chavez or his actions.  Chavez was too insignificant for Obama to feel anything.  The media is giving Chavez more stature than he deserves.  MSM is having fits, “OMAGOD, Chavez is showing disrespect with his gift of a book”; “OLAWD, Chavez shook Obama’s hand and Obama shook back.  How dare Obama act like royalty? He should be more like Rush Limbaugh: crude, ignorant, and childish!”  To date, Mr. Robinson, I have been so very pleased with your dignity and grace even when confronted with the likes of Pat Buchanan throughout the 2008 presidential campaign.  I am not thrilled with everything Obama is doing, particularly with regard to domestic policies, but I am thrilled that we have a Democratic President whose demeanor would make a nobleman look common.  When the time comes, I am confident President Obama will deal with Chavez as he needs to be dealt with and our President will not be chewing bread and cursing while doing it.  What a welcome change.

Dead wrong Eugene Robinson!

Are you the new spokesman for the right wing nuts and the war-mongers?! Because you have become a regular on MSNBC, it seems that it has gotten to your head that are mighty important. What I read in your piece is reactionary impertinence relevant only to the days of cold war and era of American arrogance.

Cool it down man! You are just an intellectual midget in comparison to Hugo Chavez!

When American and British owned oil companies were exploiting American consumers to earn record profits from artificially raised oil prices, Venezuela’s owned Citgo was providing subsidized low prices to millions of needy Americans. It’s sad that a supposedly informed journalist like you does not know about this, or you do know about it but deliberately decided to ignore.

Of course, you consider yourself now part of the elitist club, and that’s why you are biting the hand that fed many poor Americans in times of dire need!

If anyone reading this article is unfamiliar with the reality of the U.S. interference in the affairs of the sovereign countries below our borders, Naomi Klein’s The Shock Doctrine provides a good look at our empire’s efforts south of the border during the latter half of the 20th century.  One of my friends trained the Sandinista and then the Contras.  The history of our treatment of our Latin America neighbors through the 18th and 19th centuries is simply prelude to the havoc of the 20th century.

Obama is a classic “King of Diamonds”,  trying to have it both ways, manipulative and charming.  I think it is time for America to stand down, stay out of other countries business, tend to our business, maybe then we will know when we are being robbed before it too late.

The American People Must Demand Trickle-Down Prosecutions!

IBETT

Mr. Robinson,

I must agree with most other posts… this is beneath you.

What is it about the US that makes us bullies? What’s this need to have our leaders posture and jockey to the front of the pack?

Our strength is not demonstrated through the back of our presidents’ hand, but rather through living our values and succeeding against all odds.

Obama has been clear from the beginning, he said he would listen and he has done just that. His popularity is based largely on his thoughtful approach to issues and respectful approach to others. He embodies the “walk softly and carry a big stick” philosophy.

What’s the matter Mr. Robinson?

You don’t think the US deserves to take a few good slaps in the head from SA? We can dish it out but don’t expect us not to fly off the handle when someone wants to give us a taste of our own medicine….or in this case, just a whiff.

You really should be anchoring on FOX.

Hate to say it but I disagree with Mr. Robinson on this one. 

The best thing President Obama could do for us and Venezuela is to make a public statement saying the United States will not meddle in the country. We won’t covertly fund groups during elections, we won’t supply arms to anyone or any group, we won’t attempt to create public dissent against Chavez. 

Let Chavez stir his own pot of oil and see what he can do without us poking at him.

Don’t hold your breath. With Obama, “Change” is just a campaign slogan.

The back of a presidential hand such as this:

‘One telling measure of the real nature of the “change” that Obama is bringing to US-Latin American relations is the selection of his chief adviser for the Trinidad summit, Jeffrey Davidow.

A career foreign service officer, Davidow was assigned in 1971 to the US embassy in Chile as a political officer, a post often occupied by covert CIA agents. He remained in the country until 1974. This covered the period of the preparation of the US-backed military coup against the elected government of President Salvador Allende in September 1973 and the consolidation of General Augusto Pinochet’s junta through bloody political repression.

US documents declassified when Pinochet faced the threat of a trial in Spain beginning in 1998, included memos from Davidow to the military regime warning against a “conspiracy on the part of the enemies of Chile to paint the junta in the worst possible terms.” The memo preceded a campaign by the junta to murder such “enemies,” including the 1976 Washington DC car-bombing that claimed the life of Orlando Letelier, a former senior minister in the Allende government.

Another memo assured the junta that “the government of the United States of course recognizes the internal security problems that are confronting Chile.” The document, apparently memorializing a meeting Davidow attended with junta leaders, was written as tens of thousands of Chileans were being killed and tortured in detention camps.

According to the magazine Milenio, published in Mexico where Davidow was the US ambassador in the late 1990s, he was intimately involved as the political officer in Chile in the US government’s handling of the “disappearance” of 31-year-old Charles Horman, an American journalist who was shot to death in the Santiago soccer stadium in the aftermath of the 1973 coup. This tragic episode was dramatized in the Costa Gavras film Missing…’

  Nothing to see here. Move along.

I don’t think I’d fiddleone little bit with Obama’s wonderfully dignified and thoughtful yet always warm and engaging manner.

“Drama” that’s strategically introduced because a situation seems to call for “a well-timed glower or growl” would be necessarily phony. I am deeply thankful that Obama doesn’t stoop to this crap.

(And by the way: Congratulations, Eugene! We love you!)

I disagree with Gene but for entirely different reasons. True, Daniel Ortega and Hugo Chavez are irritating.  So what? As President of the United States the WORST slap Obama can deliver is act as if he is bemused by rascally puppies.  Like the Alpha Dog, he just needs to place a single well-timed nip to bring them in line, not a bone-breaking crunch.  And I don’t think it’s yet time for that nip.

Obama is Obama and I think when ticked off enough he will deliver exactly the slap needed to whomever.

Except he needs to do it to the Republicans a lot more—and PRAISE the dickens out of the ones who work with him.  He should work with Congress to punish Congess-critters by moving funding out of their districts.  Yeah, my district will suffer but if it gets our do-nothing invisible useless GOP chickenheart out it may be worth it.

It’s time to play the hard-ball the GOP has played since 1994.  Use it against them and GET THINGS DONE!

A surprisingly reactionary piece from Mr. Robinson. Was it written just to incite? What can you really expect from a MSNBC regular to offer anything up other than what falls within the perimeters of mainstream manufactured consensus:

  Chavez is evil and his Latin Leftists are rude to the wonderful great white champion of hope benevolence and freedom by introducing some truth to the event. Obama’s lack of civility is encouraged & appropriate when dealing with these Latino upstarts who should be shown “the back of the presidential hand.” Just who do they think they are! How dare they! What would Obama reciprocate with? Some compliation from the Fox news network? Surely not Howard Zinn’s people’s history.

But the final irony is Obama stood in front of European audiences and scolded them for the anti-American reactions based on some semblence of reality. Instead of any accountability on any level, Obama would prefer to not have to confront ugly truths, just glide past them into don’t-worry-be-happy lala land while the bottom drops out. How the hell can he get in front of the growing rage of looting by the banks when he and his hand-picked team of good old boys master-minded it? No one is buying his mock ourage.
  Racism, Mr Robinson? Can’t we just ignore it and move on?

You are an utter fool on the subject of Chavez and an even greater fool in your advice to Obama. I hope your Pulitzer was more than just another indicator of the laughable state of establishment journalism in America. And while we’re still here, here’s the back of my hand.

“Chavez can be charming. But when Obama shook the man’s hand, he should have telegraphed clearly, through posture, expression and language, that he was not amused. Chavez’s gift of the book was meant to affront, not to enlighten,”

I disagree and hope he reads the book. Obama has a steep learning curve when it comes to foreign policy. Hearing the truth learning the history behind the relationship we have build with our southern neighbors is a good start. We do not need another arrogant imperialist.

Agree with what you write. In trying to differentiate himself and the American people from Bush policy characterizing anyone with different opinions on governing as villainous, Obama’s bending over a little too far. Given his famous way with words, I’m sure he could come up with a few barbed replies that would sting but righteously. It’s one thing to show respect for another leader but quite another to be a patsy and smile on.