Today we hear from New York that the Cubans are approaching the United Nations annual vote on the U.S. embargo, scheduled for Oct. 28, in a more cautious manner than they did when the Bush Administration was on the other side of the table. After seventeen years of running up the score, maybe they figure they can afford to be a bit conciliatory. In any case, they hardly seem ready to give away the store in negotiations. Foreign Minister Bruno Rodriguez has said that Cuba is ready engage the United States in direct talks any time. However, Cuba would not address any "internal issues." And they would expect to talk about how the United States embargo is responsible for $223 billion of damage to the Cuban economy. And they want the United States to change its policy on Cuban immigration. And they want us to stop bombarding the island with Radio and Television Marti. And while they're at it, they want Guantanamo back.

Even in the context of the steady drumbeat of positive moves that the Administration has taken on Cuba, it is not quite conceivable that U.S.-Cuba talks could really brook these types of issues. But we're clearly in a better place in our relationship than we've been in a long time. The U.S. isn't breaking any speed records as it rolls out its review of Cuba policy, but then again, the infrastructure of the embargo was a long time in preparation. The process underway now is clearly what Denis McDonough was talking about when he told the New York Times' Mark Landler that "engagement should be judged as a means to an end, not as a policy goal in itself." That's what we are doing: talking about issues of mutual, practical concern.

This is all to the good, but of course it isn't going to lead to a quick resolution of our longstanding conflict. Most of the commentaries on this page have been highly critical of the Obama administration for not pushing ahead with an opening to Cuba many had hoped for during the campaign. It’s hard not to agree. From a big picture perspective, we have nothing to lose but the chains that have bound us to this anachronism. As we open to Cuba, and time marches on, Cuba will get freer.

If, however, in addition to the steady, quiet drumbeat of positive steps from the executive branch (freer travel for Cuban families, substantive migration talks, re-opening mail links, much more liberal rules around sending packages to Cuba -- this one for all Americans, not just Cubans) the president asked Congress to lift the travel ban, it would signal the end game. Some in Congress would put up a vitriolic fight. But it would be a fight without the broad implications of the many other difficult national debates we face, like on health care or immigration. The fact is, even though the failed Cuba policy has caused tremendous pain for those involved, most of the rest of us wonder what that’s all about and why, in an age when China finances our wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, we still care what kind of government Cuba has. When Ben Stiller introduced Juanes at the Clinton Global Initiative the other night, it was with an air of gratitude for the man who had brought a million people or so into Cuba’s main plaza. For the vast majority of Americans -- including those Americans who serve in Congress -- this is not a controversy. The vast majority of Americans, like Ben Stiller, think: yeah, why are we still embargoing that country, anyway?

Like it or not, given the packed agenda the administration faces, it would be a mistake to expect the president to jump in with both feet on Cuba. It is the pragmatic modus operandi of this administration to prioritize its challenges and spend its capital only when it's game time. From the Employee Free Choice Act to the public health care option, there’s a long list of issues where the President’s views are clear, but he hasn’t pushed them aggressively right from the gate. Time will tell whether that’s a good move or not; if, in a year or two, he hasn’t gotten anywhere on these issues, that will speak for itself. On the other hand, if he demonstrates progress on the truly difficult issues: Israel/Palestine, Afghanistan, Pakistan and Iran, then he can turn to second-tier foreign policy problems like Cuba. And if things have gone reasonably well, Cuba will not be so a tough after all.

But where does that leave those of us who care about Cuba? It might not be Iraq, but its pretty painful for the families this terrible conflict has torn apart. And it won't get better without sustained, grown-up attention. And that means that, for better or worse, Congress is in the driver’s seat right now. We should hope Sam Farr is right – and not fatally premature – when he says the votes are there to pass the bill that would open Cuba travel to everyone. Keep watching this space! If the broad spectrum of actors from trade and travel spheres can rally around one bill, it is very conceivable that the Congress can let the president ride in the back on this one.