> Doesn't it depend on how the embargo is eased as to whether it is a
> positive or negative?
> Expensive personal computers, expensive cars, designer personal good,
> cash etc. that are distributed unevenly are only going to work to
> destabilize Cuba.
It's not like Cuba is just going to accept *whatever* the U.S. may wish to send in. The Cubans also have a say on what gets in. Try to listen to Radio Marti from anywhere in Cuba.
> Letting the US overtly as well as covertly finance Cuba's right-wing
> opposition is a good thing?
That is already in place. They've tried everything, including the credible threat of nuclear destruction. So, talking without preconditions is not going to destroy the revolution. As Fidel pointed out, the only thing that can destroy the revolution is the Cubans in Cuba.
> Hardly a glass half-full in any objective lucid analysis.
> "driving a stake through the GOP's dominance of Cuban-American votes in
> Florida and elsewhere" counts for what exactly?
> Possibly picking up two or three seats in the House?
> Well that's certainly a prize worth undermining all of Cuban society to
> gain!
Again, you assume that the design of the U.S. government will be realized without friction. But that would still have to clash with the will of the Cubans.
Splitting the domestic political alignment of the Miami block would be an accomplishment. We need to be united. And we need them divided.
> This reads like an analysis almost desperate to find something to
> differentiate Obama from other Dems and so inflates extremely minor
> differences in phrases used into something significant.
A minor difference for you. Still, sufficiently big for Fidel to addresses Obama deferentially as, "doubtless, from the social and human points of view, the most progressive candidate to the U.S. presidency."