OK -- Which of the presidential candidates is prepared to finally break US-Cuba relations out of the anachronistic Cold War cocoon they have been frozen in and initiate a new course that benefits American interests?

Barack Obama has sketched out the initial steps of a changed direction already, while Hillary Clinton in response said that the Bush administration's management of Cuba was just fine with her until something triggered a reason to change.

When Fidel Castro hinted in December that he would be stepping down, I asked the Hillary Clinton campaign if this news was substantial enough for it to stop hugging the Bush line and consider a new groove. I was told by a Clinton adviser that if something significant occurred to justify a rethink, then a "full policy review" would be done by the Clinton team.

Well, the hint Castro gave is now real -- and this seems significant.

The ending punctuation point of Fidel Castro's tenure in office marks the conclusion of the longest serving head of state in power today (except monarchs).

The US embargo against Cuba -- which all nations but three vote against each year in the United Nations -- has utterly failed to generate any positive impact on the Cuban government or people.

Of all the low cost opportunities to demonstrate a new and different US style of engagement with the world, Cuba is at the top of the list. Opening family travel -- and frankly all travel -- between Cuba and the US, and ending the economic embargo will provide new encounters, new impressions, and the kind of people-to-people diplomacy that George W. Bush, John Bolton, Richard Cheney, and Jesse Helms run scared of.

This is a huge potential pivot point in US-Cuba relations. Will Hillary Clinton step up to the plate -- and will Obama move beyond the somewhat timid proposals he offered previously and go to the gold standard in US-Cuba relations articulated by Senator Chris Dodd?

And will John McCain just ignore history's offered up opportunity or will he continue to paw the dirt and blow steam at the island nation just off the Florida coast?

One interesting US presidential race tidbit involves Fidel Castro -- who is know quite dismissive of and sparring with John McCain over McCain's accusations that Cuban agents engaged in torture in Vietnam. However, before this spat, Castro said that the "unbeatable" US presidential ticket would have both Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama on it.

Something to consider. . .

-- Steve Clemons publishes the popular political blog, The Washington Note

Havana, Feb. 19, 2008 -- It was 6:00am on July 1, 2006, when we stretched, and finally descended the steps from Fidel Castro's offices in Revolution Square. As it turned out, on that steamy July morning we would be the last US guests received by Fidel Castro before he took critically ill a few weeks later.

We were a group of US health professionals, and he'd given us the whole night, speaking with passion about cochlear implants for deaf-and-blind Cuban children, the devastating health picture in Africa, Cuba's scaling up of medical training for the world (100,000 over the next decade), and the urgent need for planet-wide energy savings. He asked one of his aides for an update on the hospital being built by indigenous Garifuna MDs in Honduras, graduates of Havana's Latin American Medical School. At 3:00am, he made a call to the Cuban medical team in East Timor to see if their supplies had arrived.

About 4:00am, he discovered we hadn't eaten anything since the evening before, to which we replied that he apparently had not even had dinner. So, he ordered up a glass of cold ruby-red sorrel tea and his "tsunami", a five-grain cereal he was eating for his already chronic digestive problems. To our great chagrin and his great amusement, he passed around spoons so we could try the stuff. Then we also tried various flavors of Cuban soy yogurt, and the same hot chocolate sold to Cubans at corner grocery stores.

At one point, he suddenly turned to the pediatrician in our group: "Are you the same doctor now you were the day you graduated?". The physician took the question as a barb at old age, and jested that "sure, I'm just a little greyer". But it turned out that the Cuban President was quite serious. "I've been a politician for over 40 years," he said, giving our doctor that piercing Fidel Castro eye, "and I'm just beginning to learn something about politics."

One of our group took her cue to ask his advice for a good friend, an African-American woman who had just been elected by her district on a social justice platform. What would Castro say?

"I think you've given me pause," he opened. And that was rare enough.

"Remember that politics is an art, not a science," he ruminated. "So I would say a few things, and they would be the following:

 Defend your values and ideas now just as fervently as when you were young. Without passion, there's no reason for living.

 Our biggest problem today is to see if we can survive as a human race, if we know how to care for ourselves and the planet. This has to be on every politician's mind.

 Life is a struggle against yourself, especially if you have a little bit of power. The challenge is to remember the words of Jose Marti (Cuba's national hero): ‘All the glory in the world fits in a single kernel of corn.'

Today's announcement of Fidel Castro's resignation brought back my memory and my notes from that marathon all-nighter. Rarely you find a politician who takes his own advice: Fidel Castro has proven once again that he may be one-of-a-kind.

And that politics is indeed an art.

--Gail Reed

This is the event that fifty years of U.S. policy was designed to stop.

Fidel Castro has announced his retirement. He will be replaced in a peaceful succession, without the violent upheaval that U.S. policy makers have been predicting since the 1960s.

Now that Fidel Castro has announced his retirement, it's time to retire our Cold War era Cuba policy. It failed.

Every U.S. president since Eisenhower has tried to kill or topple Fidel Castro and replace Cuba's government and economic system with something more to our liking. They never succeeded.

It was the express purpose of the U.S. embargo, with sanctions more comprehensive than any we impose on Iran, North Korea, Sudan, or Syria to stop this transition. But it couldn't.

For years, the U.S. embargo has been rebuked in lop-sided votes in the U.N. General Assembly. On October 30, 2007, when we were last drubbed by a margin of 184 to 4 (and one abstention), not a single country in South America, Central America or the Caribbean supported our policy. Hungary, Poland, and the Czech Republic, three countries praised by President Bush one week earlier for their support of U.S. policy against Cuba, joined the condemnation -- so did Afghanistan, the United Kingdom, and South Africa, a nation whose democracy was born with the help of U.S. sanctions.

As the Cuba embargo sullies our image around the world, it undermines the national interest and our highest values here at home. The embargo sacrifices the constitutional rights of U.S. citizens to travel. It cruelly divides Cuban families on both sides of the Florida straits. Trade sanctions cost U.S. businesses about $1 billion annually, and deny U.S. citizens access to vaccines and other medical treatments. Enforcing the embargo drains resources from the war on terror. By isolating the American people from the Cuban people, we stop our citizens from doing what Americans do best; we can't offer Cubans our support or our ideas, and we're unable to benefit from what they could offer us.

I have been to Cuba close to thirty times in the last seven years and I have spoken to Cubans of every stripe -- fans of the revolution and diehard opponents of President Castro.

Cubans by their nature have vastly divergent opinions, except on one fundamental point: it is Cubans living on the island -- not politicians in Washington, not their kinsmen in Miami -- who must decide for themselves what happens next in Cuba. They cherish their sovereignty, they reject violence and instability, and they want the United States to respect those values as much as they do, especially now that they can see a future past President Fidel Castro and beyond the 50th year of their revolution.

There is a debate happening in Cuba right now, triggered by Raúl Castro on economic reform that is remarkable in its sweep. Leaders have spoken to us with unusual candor about the inability of Cubans to keep pace with prices, but they are committed to raising living standards in ways that are consistent with the preservation of Cuba's political system. We have to have clear minds about their intentions for this debate, its limits, and where it might lead.

Now would be a perfect time to send the long overdue signal that the United States is no threat to Cuba's national security, that we honor the aspirations of average Cubans, and that we are capable of having a constructive relationship with their government.

If President Bush cannot answer the call to history that has been issued in Havana, perhaps his successor will respond with greater imagination when he or she takes office in Washington next year.

People here should not misunderstand this historic moment: the Cubans we know, even determined political opponents of Fidel Castro, are proud of their country, proud of its accomplishments, and persuaded that only Cubans in Cuba -- not politicians in Washington or hardliners in Miami -- have the right and responsibility to determine their own destiny. We owe them that opportunity, now more than ever.

--Sarah Stephens

Ed. Note: This was originally posted on The Huffington Post.

The New America Foundation/US-Cuba 21st Century Policy Initiative just hosted this high octane media conference call that included more than 50 journalists and featured the following commentators:

Representative Jim McGovern (D-MA-03), US House of Representatives

Col. Lawrence B. Wilkerson, Co-Chair, New America Foundation/US-Cuba Policy Initiative; former Chief of Staff, US State Department; blogger, The Havana Note

Julia Sweig, Rockefeller Senior Fellow for Latin America Studies, Council on Foreign Relations

Peter Kornbluh, Director, Cuba Documentation Project, National Security Archive, George Washington University

Sarah Stephens, Executive Director, Center for Democracy in the Americas and blogger, The Havana Note

Jake Colvin, Director, USA*Engage, National Foreign Trade Council and blogger, The Havana Note

moderator

Patrick Doherty, Director, New America Foundation, US-Cuba Policy Initiative and blogger, The Havana Note

I would have loved to have been on the call too but couldn't swing it from Japan -- but I hear from many sources that the audio clip here is excellent.

-- Steve Clemons

I will grade the statements later made by the various national leaders below. But I think it's important to create a semi-central repository of some of the more important leadership responses.

Interestingly, Congressman Jim McGovern (D-MA-03) on a conference call this morning said that he believes Obama and Clinton both are more flexible than their public statements indicate.

Here are some of the statements I have seen:

Senator Barack Obama (D-IL)

"Today should mark the end of a dark era in Cuba's history. Fidel Castro's stepping down is an essential first step, but it is sadly insufficient in bringing freedom to Cuba.

"Cuba's future should be determined by the Cuban people and not by an anti-democratic successor regime. The prompt release of all prisoners of conscience wrongly jailed for standing up for the basic freedoms too long denied to the Cuban people would mark an important break with the past. It's time for these heroes to be released.

"If the Cuban leadership begins opening Cuba to meaningful democratic change, the United States must be prepared to begin taking steps to normalize relations and to ease the embargo of the last five decades. The freedom of the Cuban people is a cause that should bring the Americans together."

Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-NY)

"As you know, Fidel Castro announced that he is stepping down as Cuba's leader after 58 years of one-man rule. The new leadership in Cuba will face a stark choice -- continue with the failed policies of the past that have stifled democratic freedoms and stunted economic growth -- or take a historic step to bring Cuba into the community of democratic nations. The people of Cuba want to seize this opportunity for real change and so must we.

"I would say to the new leadership, the people of the United States are ready to meet you if you move forward towards the path of democracy, with real, substantial reforms. The people of Cuba yearn for the opportunity to get out from under the weight of this authoritarian regime, which has held back 11 million talented and hardworking citizens of the Americas. The new government should take this opportunity to release political prisoners and to take serious steps towards democracy that give their people a real voice in their government.

"The American people have been on the side in the Cuban people's struggle for freedom and democracy in the past and we will be on their side for democracy in the future.

"As president, I will engage our partners in Latin America and Europe who have a strong stake in seeing a peaceful transition to democracy in Cuba, and who want very much for the United States to play a constructive role to that end. The United States must pursue an active policy that does everything possible to advance the cause of freedom, democracy and opportunity in Cuba.

"The events of the past three days, including elections in Pakistan and Kosovo's declaration of independence, are a vivid illustration of people around the world yearning for democracy and opportunity. We need a president with the experience to recognize and seize these opportunities to advance America's values and interests around the world. I will be that president."

Senator John McCain (R-AZ)

"Today's resignation of Fidel Castro is nearly half a century overdue. For decades, Castro oversaw an apparatus of repression that denied liberty to the people who suffered under his dictatorship.

"Yet freedom for the Cuban people is not yet at hand, and the Castro brothers clearly intend to maintain their grip on power. That is why we must press the Cuban regime to release all political prisoners unconditionally, to legalize all political parties, labor unions and free media, and to schedule internationally monitored elections.

"Cuba's transition to democracy is inevitable; it is a matter of when -- not if. With the resignation of Fidel Castro, the Cuban people have an opportunity to move forward and continue pushing for the moment that they will truly be free. America can and should help hasten the sparking of freedom in Cuba. The Cuban people have waited long enough.

Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY)\

"Let us hope that the long ruthless dictatorship of Fidel Castro is truly over, and that freedom and democracy may come to Cuba.

Replacing one dictator with another, as appears to be the case, isn't the answer to the repression, brutality and fear produced by five decades of Castro. But that doesn't diminish the hope for or the efforts toward the day when the Cuban people can choose their own leaders and enjoy the freedom that Castro so relentlessly denied."

Senator Bob Menendez (D-NJ)

"This is not the cause for celebration that some would believe. This does not represent the replacement of totalitarianism with democracy -- instead, it is the replacement of one dictator with another. In essence, today's action makes official what has been in place for a while now, with Raul continuing to lead the same iron-fisted regime that his brother brought to power almost 50 years ago. Just because the dictator is now named Raul instead of Fidel, it doesn't mean that the regime's repressive rule will automatically change.

"What this move does perhaps present is a moment of hope. Raul does not have the same relationship with the Cuban people as Fidel, and now is the time to challenge him. Cubans who have been clamoring for change may see this as the opportunity to peacefully protest and make their aspirations known. The recent activism of Cuban youth wearing white "Cambio" bracelets is a reflection of that desire for change.

Here in the United States, it is a time to further nurture the human rights activists, political dissidents and independent-minded journalists inside of Cuba who have the capability to stoke the movement toward freedom."

Representative Lincoln Diaz-Balart (R-FL)

"It is important to realize that, as of this time, there has been no change in totalitarian Cuba.

Fidel Castro has been critically ill and immobile for over a year and a half. Accordingly, he has decided to relinquish the titles of "President" of his "Council of State" and "Commander in Chief". But in totalitarian Cuba, Fidel Castro's absolute power is not based on titles.

The dictator's written declarations have the effect of totalitarian decrees, whether signed with the title "Commander in Chief" or "Comrade", or simply with his name. What we all need to be concentrating on is the urgent need for a democratic transition in Cuba, beginning with the liberation of all political prisoners, the legalization of all political parties, labor unions and the press, and the scheduling of free, multiparty elections. Let us not get confused with the dictator's titles or lack of them. For now, nothing has changed in totalitarian Cuba. It is time for the international community to unite to press for freedom for all the political prisoners and for free elections in Cuba."

Representative Jeff Flake (R-AZ>

"The reign of Fidel Castro marked a brutal and dictatorial chapter for the Cuban people," said Flake. "Let's hope that his resignation opens a new chapter."

"Whether that new chapter will be open, however, largely depends on a new approach to Cuba by the U.S. Government. The U.S. embargo gave Fidel a tremendous advantage in terms of lengthening his tenure. Let's not give his successor the same advantage by keeping the embargo in place."

Congressman Flake, a critic of the U.S.'s current Cuba policy, believes that the most effective way to hasten democratic reforms in Cuba is to ease trade and travel restrictions currently imposed by the U.S.

Senate Foreign Relations Chairman Joe Biden (D-DE)

"With Castro's resignation, Cuba's darkest days could finally be coming to an end, opening up a new age of possibility for the Cuban people and Cuban-American relations. But a possibility is not a guarantee.

"Whether Raul Castro, or another, is named successor, we should not consider lifting the embargo until Cuba frees political prisoners, respects human rights and allows independent civil organizations. However, we should not sit back and wait for the successor to act; there are steps we should take now to support the Cuban people and to start to put in place a strong foundation for freedom and free enterprise.

"First, we should allow increased travel of Cuban Americans to the island for family or humanitarian visits. Second, we should expand family remittances from Cuban Americans to include extended family. Third, we should allow U.S.-based companies and non-profits to send remittances to Cubans to support small business, and we should establish an Enterprise Fund, like the ones we set up after the end of communism in Eastern Europe, to jump start small and medium-sized private enterprise. Finally, we must establish direct mail service to Cuba.

"The Cuban-American community has a lead role to play in these efforts. Together, we can build the kind of bright future Cuba's people deserve after decades in the dark."

Senate Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus (D-MT)

"Fidel Castro's welcome resignation provides a new opportunity to revisit our failed Cuba policies and put U.S.-Cuba relations on a new path," said Baucus.

"It is time to get our Cuba policy right for America's farmers and ranchers -- including those in my home state of Montana, who are ready to sell their goods to Cuban buyers -- and for families across the Florida Straits by beginning to ease trade and travel restrictions now."

Last summer, Baucus -- along with Senator Mike Crapo (R-Idaho) and Representatives Charles Rangel (D-N.Y.) and Jo Ann Emerson (R-Mo.), introduced legislation to make it easier for U.S. farmers and ranchers to sell their world-class products to Cuba by easing restrictions on travel to and payment from Cuba.

Baucus held a hearing on the "Promoting American Agricultural and Medical Exports to Cuba Act of 2007" on December 11, 2007, and is working with colleagues in the Senate to move the bill forward this year.

An independent International Trade Commission study commissioned by Baucus found that removing U.S. export restrictions would increase the annual U.S. share of Cuba’s agriculture imports to as much as nearly 70 percent, representing an annual boost of over $300 million in U.S. agriculture sales.

More later.

-- Steve Clemons

Later in the day, I plan to grade the various public statements from leading American politicians below. But one criteria I will use is whether they evince any humility at all about the fact that America's many decades old embargo failed to alter the political path of the Cuban government.

I will grade on the basis of whether these politicians are seeing and responding to reality or blinded by a perversion dictated by ideology and calculations that they think will help them with the vote in Miami but undermine US national interests.

Lexington Institute Senior Fellow Anya Landau French -- a former senior staff member on the Senate Finance Committee -- has this great article out today on the Washington Post's site, "Castro's Departure Means the US Failed".

I have one big quibble with it -- but the piece is excellent overall. Here's the lead in:

Fidel Castro leaving office on his own terms is not the kind of change that successive American presidents envisioned for Cuba. In fact, it's a sign that U.S. efforts to isolate that country and bring down its socialist government have failed. It's a sign that those efforts should be revisited.

Despite a 46-year U.S. embargo, Cuba today is anything but a pariah state. Canada, China and Spain have made major investments in the country over the last decade, particularly in tourism, nickel and energy. Venezuela continues to trade cut-rate oil for Cuban doctors. And the island remains a popular destination for vacationers from around the world.

These relationships have helped the Cuban economy grow -- 7 percent last year, according to CIA estimates. Moreover, they helped prevent the frustration-fueled overthrow that U.S. leaders long hoped would end Castro's regime. In effect, treating Cuba as an all-or-nothing proposition netted the United States nothing. Our interests have gone unserved and our ideals unmet.

But while Castro's departure is playing out differently from expectations, it still provides an opportunity. And the U.S. can either continue a policy rooted in ineffective sanctions or tailor its policy to the new possibilities of post-Fidel Cuba.

Some countries friendly to the United States are already moving ahead. Spain has initiated a human rights dialogue with Cuba. Brazil's President Lula da Silva, who recently offered Cuba a $1-billion line of credit, provides the island an alternative to its dependence on Venezuela's Hugo Chavez.

There are many steps the next U.S. president could take, short of offering economic aid or normalizing trade relations, that could increase our influence in Cuba without giving up leverage associated with the embargo.

My quibble is with the last line above: without giving up leverage associated with the embargo.

I think that one of the realities that needs to be confronted is that when I was in Havana, I met some Israelis involved with managing Cuban citrus groves. I saw a Benetton store in the new Havana. I saw Chinese selling major port infrastructure loading equipment to Cuba. British Petroleum was having a cocktail party on the roof of my hotel. Tourism is high.

There is always a sense of leverage that the US thinks it has -- but that leverage is now mostly fictional -- as Cuba has found other thoroughfares for growth.

We need to stop thinking that we have "leverage." The whole point of Anya Landau French's article is that US policy failed and that the embargo has failed -- so let's drop the fiction about the US having leverage in the embargo.

The only leverage America has on lifting or maintaining the embargo is with an aging, Castro-obsessed, reactionary population in Miami that thankfully is being taken over by a more rational contingent of Cuban-Americans who have either rethought their views or who just don't carry the same views as their elders in their younger portfolios of experience.

-- Steve Clemons

With the anti-climactic departure of Fidel Castro from power in Cuba, it appears that the United States plans to hurry up and continue waiting for change in Cuba.

The waiting may soon be over. Today, twenty-four U.S. senators, led by Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus (D-MT) and Senator Mike Enzi (R-WY), wrote to Secretary Rice (for letter click here) -- as did 104 members of the House last week--urging a rethink of U.S. policy toward the island of Cuba.

"There is no magic U.S. policy that will transform Cuba," the senators wrote. "But with Cuba facing a period of change, we have a new opportunity to seize. Our policy based on sanctions, passivity, and waiting should end. We need a new approach that defends human rights, is confident about the value of American engagement with Cubans, builds new economic bridges between America and Cuba, and seeks every possible avenue of increasing American influence."

While it is highly doubtful that Secretary Rice will have the opportunity to heed their advice in her remaining months in office, Congress may be set to press the issue next year, when there is a new administration to work with.

Majorities in both chambers have repeatedly voted to ease current U.S. restrictions on travel to the island, and have favored facilitating agricultural exports to Cuba. Previously, President Bush strongly opposed any relaxation of U.S. restrictions relating to Cuba, and former Majority Leader Tom Delay was known to make sure any such changes would die in conference.

What might happen next year, when there is a new president and a new Congress?

Most surely, a coalition of largely farm-state Democrats and Republicans will again get behind legislation to ease restrictions on cash transfers and bilateral travel by US exporters and Cuban buyers. But this time, the president might not stand in the way of a one-way export opportunity.

A majority in Congress is also likely to ease new restrictions on Cuban American family travel and remittances to the island, whether by clarifying the 2000 guidelines for categories of allowable travel, or by refusing to fund enforcement against such travel.

While easing family travel restrictions would be considered a humanitarian act, giving preference to one group of travelers would be an untenable position. Lifting the entire (de facto) ban on travel to Cuba remains the swiftest means to extend U.S. influence on the island and preserve all Americans' rights to travel, but it faces determined--minority--opposition in both chambers of Congress.

Yet, such opposition could be overcome, and the next president may not bother (when there are far more pressing matters in play) to veto less-expansive legislation that categorically allows and encourages people-to-people, humanitarian, academic, religious, family, and agricultural export-related travel to Cuba. All such categories of exchanges are already legal, but President Bush curtailed or ended them altogether four years ago by revising the regulations interpreting the law.

What else might the 111th Congress do? Numerous issues sitting on the back burner deserve prompt attention. Certainly there will be interest in oversight of such matters as human and labor rights advocacy, agricultural trade and other economic issues, US AID grantmaking, drug interdiction, military-to-military contacts, the US designation of Cuba as a state sponsor of terrorism and anti-terrorism cooperation, Cuban intelligence operations in the United States, intellectual property and other rights under signed conventions, settlement of U.S. claims against Cuba, return of fugitives from justice in the U.S. and Cuba, Radio and TV Marti quality and viewership, and environment cooperation to prevent damage to the Florida coastline due to oil exploration in Cuban waters.

The foregoing legislative agenda would mark a clear shift in U.S. policy toward increasing U.S. influence--leverage arguably more potent than sanctions--and protecting U.S. interests relative to Cuba. There is no guarantee that conditions in Cuba will improve as a result of a U.S. policy shift. But no matter what policy the U.S. president stakes out, it is not likely that this Congress, or the next, will put much stock in waiting another fifty years to find out.

-- Anya Landau French