This just in: Fidel Castro handicaps U.S. election

We can only guess how many of you have been desperately waiting for political advice from Fidel Castro, el supremo Cuban leader despite those nagging intestinal problems that have kept him out of sight for a year. And now, finally, we have it.

Direct from his hospital suite the bearded dictator has written an editorial in the Communist Party newspaper Granma that we bet did not receive many changes by editors fearing prison.

Anyway, the 81-year-old Castro decreed that a 2008 U.S. presidential ticket pairing Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama would be "invincible." Presumably he means in the United States because they don't allow free elections in Cuba.

Of course, this could be a trick, part of a Communist plot. Maybe the wily Castro realizes that such a suggestion by a foreigner like him could actually be the kiss of death if such a ticket came out of the Democrats' Denver convention a year from now. Imagine the headlines: "Dems do as Castro says, name Hillary and Barack." Or "Castro says si to Dem ticket." He could even come to Denver disguised as Michael Moore and give one of his three-hour orations to the assembled delegates.

But maybe, Castro actually favors Ron Paul, the Republican isolationist who theoretically would care less about a tropical island 90 miles away. And by ignoring Paul like everyone else in the Northern Hemisphere except a small band of unemployed web cruisers who believe in voluminous free expression, this is Castro's way of helping to boost the Texas congressman's poll numbers out of the single digit.

The two American candidates Castro favors actually disagree on U.S. policy toward Cuba. As reported here recently, after speaking out on unilaterally bombing U.S. ally Pakistan, Obama wrote an op-ed in the Miami Herald advocating a fresh approach to Cuban policy as it nears the end of the Castro era.

Obama says he would lift Bush administration restrictions on visits to Cuba by relatives and...

ease the flow of financial remittances back to the island from the U.S. He was supported by Dennis Kucinich while John Edwards and Chris Dodd said they would lift only travel restrictions.

Clinton, on the other hand, criticized Obama's idea as further proof of his inexperience, suggesting she would change nothing until she detected democratic intentions by a new Cuban regime.

According to Reuters, Cuba's foreign minister, Felipe Perez Roque, recently welcomed Obama's idea and said, "These declarations appear to express the sentiment of the majority of the United States."

Now, here's an interesting wrinkle that could mean something for those Americans still dissatisfied with the current crop of Democratic Party candidates. It drew little international attention but in his editorial Castro raises the question of whether former Vice President Al Gore will give up his lucrative speech-making gig and try to become president again. Does this mean that Castro reads Top of the Ticket?

Regular readers know that we have kept a dutiful watch on a possible Gore candidacy, seizing every opportunity to keep readers informed of his mysterious intentions with items like this one and this one and this one and this one and this one. Oh, and this one too. Castro praised Gore because "better than anyone, he knows about the kind of catastrophe that awaits humanity if it continues along its current course."

Presumably Castro was talking about global warming and not the fortunes of the lowly Washington Nationals. But he did criticize the Democrats' 2000 presidential nominee. "When he was a candidate," Castro wrote, "he of course committed the error of yearning for 'a democratic Cuba.' " Silly Gore.

But how does Castro really feel about the possibility of another Gore candidacy? As closely plugged into American politics as he is, does Castro think the Oscar winner will give the White House one more go? "I don't think he will do so," Castro predicts. A minor setback for those of us awaiting further word from Al.

We promise to keep you informed of any future developments.

--Andrew Malcolm

Comments

[tannim]

"But maybe, Castro actually favors Ron Paul, the Republican isolationist who theoretically would care less about a tropical island 90 miles away. And by ignoring Paul like everyone else in the Northern Hemisphere except a small band of unemployed web cruisers who believe in voluminous free expression, this is Castro's way of helping to boost the Texas congressman's poll numbers out of the single digit."

You are either bleeping idiots or you're trying to be funny and failing miserably.

1. Ron Paul is a non-internventionist, not an isloationist; responsible and intelligent journalists know the difference. Do you?
2. Ron Paul is not ignored by everyone in the Northern Hemisphere, just media under marching orders from you corporate-controlled bosses who will lose their corporate welfare checks when he's elected, and the people who for some reason still read them. It's a deliberate media blackout driven by money and you know it! Fact is, his bottoms-up grassroots movement using the New Media to coordinate and communicate is totally different from the old paradigm (worth 20 cents) that is the top-down, marching-orders-from-on-high camapigns everyone else is running. You're missing decentralized success in action!
3. Ron Paul supporters are not unemployed web cruisers. Demographically we are smarter, more educated, more tech-savy, and have fully-employed higher incomes than the average person who get their news and reality spoon-fed by the dinosuars in the MSM.
4. What's wrong with volumnious free expression? Don't like competition, especially when it's so obviously much better than you? Or are you really in favor of censorship and against the very First Amendment that allows you your job?
5. Castro has been a non-factor in globals politics since the 1970s.
6. Ron Paul keeps winning straw polls left and right by huge margins, and his bottoms-up campaign rolls allong under the radar screen. His "single digit" polls are the ones conducted by the MSM, so they are skewed by definition against him in the first place.

Remember, snowballs that roll downhill become avalanches...and winter is coming!

"The Revolution will NOT be televised!" RP08

I dare you to actually come to the USC rally September 12 and see what is really going on! You might be surprised.

(Ans: If we were so controlled and interested in censorship, we probably wouldn't invite and actually show the world Ron Paul comments like this, nor would we have done previous Ron Paul items pointing out his straw poll success. You're a very selective web cruiser.-AM)

[David]

I thought it was funny, tongue in check post. Perhaps the description struck too close to home.

People should check out Paul's performance on the "Wait Wait, Don't Tell Me" show, which is on the socialist, anti-American, ingrateful, puppy kicking NPR. He was pretty humorous and goodnatured on it, which could not be said about some of his supporters. The podcast is free on its website and iTunes (google it yourself).

[Kevin]

Read "The Fourth Floor" by Earl Smith--learn how the United States gonvernment created chaos in Cuba, and brought Castro, a known communist to power. Smith was the United States ambassador to Cuba at the time.

[jeffrey]

If you are under 13 years of age you may read this message board, but you may not participate.

Who over 13 would find Mr. Malcolm amusing?

[SounthernManifesto]

Can you do me a favor, please do not make blogs if you don't understand what you are writing about.

Ron Paul is not an isolationist, he is a non-interventionist. If you are unable to understand the difference then stop talking about it.

[bkusz]

If you notice, guys that write these trashy articles about Candidates they don't support never mention who they support. Why? They know that they would get there heads handed to them with real legit dirt..

Andrew has ZERO credibility at this point..

[lexmerc]

Perhaps Castro favors Mitt Romney. The Governor’s Massachusetts healthcare plan is both socialistic and authoritarian.

Ron Paul and Fidel Castro could not be located any further from one another on the political spectrum.

[Agent Smith]

(Ans: If we were so controlled and interested in censorship, we probably wouldn't invite and actually show the world Ron Paul comments like this, nor would we have done previous Ron Paul items pointing out his straw poll success. You're a very selective web cruiser.-AM)

You didn't answer the first question. Or is the mistake intentional, to invite the ire of Paul's supporters? Mr. Malcolm, are you familiar with the term 'Internet Troll' ? I'm of the opinion you make a better troll in this case than a journalist, but let's see what you have to say, yes?

[Jason]

Thats a good Bushie, slander the only guy who cares about issues like the value of the dollar and getting out of the mess we are in overseas.

[marta]

37, 000 Americans donated to Paul in one day. Dec 16, more than 50,000 will donate. A small band of unemployed web cruisers?

Way to be on the wrong side of history, bud.

(Why are you guys so focused on this item, which is months old? Have you bothered to search Ron Paul in the Subject roll on the right here? There's been tons of stuff since then. Get with it.)

[Jeanette Doney]

If being an isolationist means not being a new world order globalist with a central global government running a privatized police state by wars, of the multinational war machine, and for a profit of an elite global class, count me in.

GO RON PAUL 08!

[SpasmsOfTheDyingTraditionalMedia]

It's amazing what drivel passes for journalism these days in our allegedly free press. If you guys would just take the time out to read Ron Paul's "A Foreign Policy of Freedom" you would clearly see that he has been warning Congress about it's disastrous interventionist foreign policy for 30 years now and the disastrous interventionist economic policy that has lead to the massive housing bubble and credit crisis.

Here we're still entrenched in ridiculous, unjustified, illegal wars that have nothing to do with fighting terrorism they're only inciting more hatred and potential terrorism towards the US. The media has been complicit in spreading the lies of the Bush administration and the Neocon movement that is ruled by considerations for Big Oil and the defense of Israel but zero to do with protecting American citizens.

Journalists don't even take themselves seriously anymore they just resort to cynicism and sarcasm as if that passes for information. So why should we take journalists seriously?

The American people need to leave the media behind. We don't need the corporate media any more when information is readily available on the internet. The sooner internet usage dominates traditional media the better for all Americans.

(Agreed, especially since we're on the internet and nowhere else.)

[Jonathan Bennett]

Mr. Malcolm, please pardon the name calling, but you are either a liar or a complete moron, you decide which one. I'm so frustrated with the total ignorance that these so-called reporters actually put out for the public to read. Then again, it's great to see all of the educated patriots come out in full force to correct the mistakes.

"But maybe, Castro actually favors Ron Paul, the Republican isolationist who theoretically would care less about a tropical island 90 miles away. And by ignoring Paul like everyone else in the Northern Hemisphere except a small band of unemployed web cruisers who believe in voluminous free expression, this is Castro's way of helping to boost the Texas congressman's poll numbers out of the single digit."

Have you not listened any of the countless times that Ron Paul has explained his non-interventionist foreign policy. He just said, in a recent so-called debate, that he would start diplomacy and trade with Cuba... how on earth is that isolationism? Also, it's pretty clear that "everyone else in the Northern Hemisphere" isn't "ignoring" Paul. The guy has won just about every GOP straw poll across the nation, way more than any other GOP candidate. He's got more support on every social networking site on the internet. And he had more than 35,000 people donate money to the campaign in one day, he'll have even more do so on the 16th of this month. By the way, I have a real job, unlike yourself. Go back to sleep, you're tired.

(You're the one who needs waking up. Look at the date on that item. You're living in ancient times and ranting over forgotten things. Search Ron Paul on the right here and get with it.)

[Matt]

Before everyone discounts or generalizes internet users, they should read this pew study. The highlight is 70%+ of Americans use the internet. Among those Americans, the percentages increase with both education and household income. Take a look. Then decided if these are all "un-employed web cruisers" :)

http://www.pewinternet.org/pdfs/PIP_Internet_Impact.pdf

[B Reyes]

I realize that his is an opinion piece, but please report the facts at least.

Ron Paul is not ignored in the least. He has raised almost $12 million this quarter, that is serious money. In fact, in one day he raised $4.2 million through 38,000 individual donors, 21,000 of them were brand new donors. He has without question the largest volunteer base in the entire race. He has democrats, republicans, independents, young, old, conservative, leftists, anti-war, hard money advocates, anti-drug war people, strict constitutionalists, home schoolers, pro-gun people and actually has the most donations from active military personnel. No other candidate has united so many different people like he has.

Will he win? Who knows? The odds are great, but DO NOT act as if he is only a blip on the radar because he is not.

Secondly, Ron Paul is a non-internventionist, not an isolationist. What this means is that he believes that the US, as a country, does not have the right to get involved in another sovereign nation's internal affairs anymore than they have the right to get involved in ours.

He is pro-trade, pro-legal immigration, pro-peace, pro-diplomacy. An isolationist stance is that there be no trade, no immigration, no diplomacy and no connection whatsoever.

Please correct the article. Thank you.

[SpasmsOfTheDyingTraditionalMedia]

(Agreed, especially since we're on the internet and nowhere else.)

You may be only on the internet but you still present the same myopic view of the world that we see in the traditional media and of course you represent a traditional media company.

My point was that the internet is free from these corporate constraints so we can research, obtain alternate viewpoints from foreign sources and independent media and come to our own conclusions rather than follow the prevailing viewpoint that is fed through our boob tubes. It also makes it far easier to spot lazy journalism.

10 years ago we would have been completely dependent upon traditional media and would never have heard of Dr Ron Paul. Give us another 10 years and hopefully we will rarely hear the LA Times, CNN, Fox News and the rest of the mainstream propaganda machine.

(Right, everybody can just make up their own news content. There's liberty.
P.S. Thanks for reading the giant, old, dying, corporately-controlled blog that's one of the few writing about your candidate regularly anyway and taking the time to add to the dialogue that's attracted hundreds of others too.
And, by the way, check the date on this item and then search for all the newer ones on Dr. Paul that have appeared since.)

[tejón]

I sometimes wonder whether the ravenous Paul zealots are actually ravenous anti-Paul zealots deliberately trying to make a bad impression. I've seen a couple of those that were obvious, but ones like this just seem so sincere... dunno.

I mean, I'm voting for Paul myself, but if I were finding out about him from these people flooding the forums, I'm not sure I would have spent the time to go read his policy positions in any depth. Negative associations can be powerful.

[SpasmsOfTheDyingTraditionalMedia]

(Right, everybody can just make up their own news content. There's liberty.
P.S. Thanks for reading the giant, old, dying, corporately-controlled blog that's one of the few writing about your candidate regularly anyway and taking the time to add to the dialogue that's attracted hundreds of others too.
And, by the way, check the date on this item and then search for all the newer ones on Dr. Paul that have appeared since.)

You can stand there and staunchly defend the traditional media but to me and many others the role of the media in supporting this poorly defined "global war on terrorism" and suppressing dissenting views is indefensible. I and many others will never trust the mainstream media again.

This article may be several months old but that doesn't change the fact that it is inaccurate, represents the prevailing biased view of the media and has had a significant influence on the public's perception of Ron Paul. Just as the media continues to distort and suppress his message and label his supporters as crackpots or the bizarre denizens of the internet.

I wonder how many journalists really take the time to research the facts themselves and formulate their own conclusions rather than follow the trend of the leading media outlets and the news wires. It must be a rare journo indeed.

Thanks for your replies. I don't hold a grudge against you personally Mr Malcolm, I'm sure you are a man of wisdom and strong moral fiber. My anger is directed at the media establishment in general not you.

(And I don't take it personally either. I've learned that nothing makes most of Dr. Paul's supporters happy and we're not trying to anyway. The reality is many of them don't read very closely. But here in this new media we appreciate the reads--and comments.)

[Joseph]

Mysterious forces are indeed at work, Andrew.

I have just seen this archive blog from last August in which you use a horse racing term, "handicaps", in the title. Further down the piece you point to the possibility of a late entry to the race, Al Gore.

You know my hypothesis that artists give us a glimpse of the future. This August blog adds evidence to my contention that the movie Seabiscuit foreshadows the coming presidential election.

I am betting on Seabiscuit, Ron Paul. Name your favorite Democrat candidate is War Admiral in the '08 match race.

I also remind you of what Alexis de Tocqueville wrote:
"In times when the passions are beginning to take charge of the conduct of human affairs, one should pay less attention to what men of experience and common sense are thinking than to what is preoccupying the imagination of dreamers."

In August you wrote about " a small band of unemployed web cruisers who believe in voluminous free expression." I point out that we retired or unemployed have plenty of time to dream! At least you are paying attention to the dreamers. Thank you. And you won't be surprised by future events.

(Yes, Joseph, you've mentioned this before elsewhere.)

[Doug D]

Ron Paul has openly called for free trade and travel between Cuba and the USA. How could anyone call that "isolationist"????? The true isolationists are the ones who want to embargo Cuba, use trade sanctions as a precursor to war, threaten to bomb a country that isn't even working on nuclear weapons, and invade one that didn't attack or threaten us.

Please stop throwing words out there without thinking about them. Ron Paul's foreign policy is the opposite of our current isolationist policy, the one that has the world turning against us.