In his latest article, Miami Herald columnist Andres Oppenheimer examined the three leading candidates for the U.S. presidency- Hillary Clinton, John McCain, and Barack Obama. Oppenheimer’s piece focused mainly more on the Illinois senator who has increased his rhetoric on Latin America (Exhibits A, B): Now that Sen. Barack Obama is the front-runner for the Democratic Party's presidential nomination, it's time to answer a question that many U.S. Hispanics and Latin Americans are asking: Would he be good for Latin America?
On the minus side, Obama has never been to Latin America, as he told me in an interview last year. And when I asked him who are the three Latin American leaders he respects the most, it took him a while to scan through his mental C-drive and respond, ''the president of Chile,'' whom he correctly identified as a woman but failed to mention by name. (I didn't press him about the remaining two.)
Obama was quick to add, however, that ''my interest and regard for Latin America is one that has been developing for a long period of time,'' and that he would visit Mexico after winning his party's nomination, before the November elections.
Oppenheimer [image] went on to focus on the differences between Obama and Clinton on several issues including free trade, Cuba, and immigration. Oppenheimer concluded the following:
My opinion: Overall, both Obama and Clinton would be better than McCain for Latin America on the immigration front (a key issue for Mexico and Central America) and worse than the likely Republican candidate on the trade front (a key issue for Panama, Colombia, and South American countries seeking free-trade deals with Washington).
On a related note, Nicaraguan president Daniel Ortega may have endorsed Obama by noting that his candidacy represented "for a revolutionary change.”
Sources- MiamiHerald.com, Spero News, The Latin Americanist
Image- noticias24.com
No comments:
Post a Comment