Obama is being constantly reminded of his “Carrots versus Sticks” philosophy, from his economic to his foreign policy. “Carrots for banks, sticks for autos-companies” has been the criticism from certain quarters regarding his economic recovery policy. Nevertheless, it’s in the foreign policy arena where the criticism has been gathering among conservatives and Republican commentators, who have yet to concede any credit to the new administration for the wisdom of this approach as opposed to the “rootin tootin” cowboy style of his predecessor.

The election of Barack Obama as President of the United States has sent waves of hope around the world that America is embarking on “change you can believe in.” The carrot versus stick approach has clearly reaped instant dividends even taking the Obama administration by surprise.  

According to Truthout, one official acknowledged that the Obama administration was caught off guard by Cuban President Raul Castro's willingness to discuss issues long considered off-limits by the communist leadership.

Raul Castro indicated his willingness to discuss sensitive topics, including human rights, with a declaration that he was ready for a "new beginning" in relations. "We are willing to discuss everything -- human rights, freedom of press, political prisoners, everything, everything, everything they want to talk about," Castro said. "We could be wrong, we admit it. We're human."

It seems that the admission of one’s country’s own mistakes as Obama was criticized for doing in Europe is catching on. Raul Castro’s admission-- "We could be wrong, we admit it. We're human,” has the breathtaking freshness reminiscent of President Obama’s European mia culpa.  “America has shown arrogance and been dismissive, even derisive' towards its allies.”

It should be added that Obama balanced his concession by the following criticism of Europe.  "But in Europe, there is an anti-Americanism that is at once casual but can also be insidious. Instead of recognizing the good that America so often does in the world, there have been times where Europeans choose to blame America for much of what's bad."

Obama went on to say, “On both sides of the Atlantic, these attitudes have become all too common. They are not wise. They do not represent the truth. They threaten to widen the divide across the Atlantic and leave us both more isolated. They fail to acknowledge the fundamental truth that America cannot confront the challenges of this century alone, but that Europe cannot confront them without America.”

This carrot versus stick approach appears to have reporters wrestling with the “change you can believe in.” Chuck Todd of MSNBC reporting on President Obama’s reception in Latin America contrasted the exuberant welcome in Europe versus his reception at the conference in Trinidad. Todd reported that the sessions with the South American leaders were heavy on giving Obama a history lesson on how America has interfered in their domestic politics, concluding his report with,   “that’s why you’re not seeing rose petals being thrown at the feet of Obama if that’s how you would want to characterize how he was received in Europe.”  

Despite the general theme among reporters that Obama wasn’t receiving much love from the Latin Americans, the video bites being aired were to the contrary. Those surrounding  Mr. Obama in Trinidad displayed the same happy smiles on their faces that we saw in Europe and Turkey.

In fact one reporter in the press corp. thought there was too much smiling going on. Dan Lothian of CNN focused on the optics of the President shaking hands and smiling with Hugo Chavez. When Lothian was called on by the President at the press conference, he asked the question regarding how  that congeniality appear politically, to which the president responded that his having a cordial conversation with Mr. Chavez in no way jeopardized America’s security.  

Nevertheless, Dan Lothian continued to push the—Obama was too friendly with the enemy—theme with the report filed later that day on CNN.
Don Lemon the CNN anchor  introduced the piece:  "President Barack Obama met with reporters today as he prepared to leave Trinidad Tobago  and our reporter Dan Lothian was there."    
DAN LOTHIAN: “At a forty-five minute press conference Mr. Obama also seemed unconcerned about his friendly interaction at the summit with America’s chief antagonist Venezuela’s  President Hugo Chavez..”
OBAMA: “It’s unlikely that as a consequence of me shaking hands or having a polite  conversation Mr. Chavez that we are endangering the strategic interest of the United States.”
LOTHIAN VO: “But one republican critic on CNN’s  State of the Union, had a different take”.
Sen. John Ensign R Nevada “I think it was irresponsible for the president to be seen kinda laughing and joking with Hugo Chavez.”
DAN LOTHIAN VO: “again Mr. Obama brushed off the criticism”
OBAMA: “If the question Dan is how does this play politically I don’t know. I don’t worry about the politics. I try to figure out what’s right in terms of America’s interest and on this one I think I’m right.”  

At another point in the questioning the President explained. “The whole notion was that if we showed courtesy or opened up dialogue with governments that had previously been hostile to us, that that somehow would be a sign of weakness," Said Obama , referring to his race for the White House and responding to the implication of the question  "The American people didn't buy it," Obama said. "And there's a good reason the American people didn't buy it — because it doesn't make sense."

This is where American reporters indulge in their jingoistic inclinations. Hugo Chavez has been vilified in the American press because of his comments against America. “He notably called George Bush the Devil.” The question was raised that Obama allowed himself to be used by shaking hands and smiling with Chavez.

Actually, Mr. Chavez has a legitimate beef. Documents have surfaced that reveal that the CIA under the Bush administration new of the impending coup attempt against Chavez and did not warn him.  U.S. officials have repeatedly denied U.S. involvement in the coup of April 11, 2002, which was spurred by the killing of 19 people during a massive opposition-led protest. Loyalists in the military returned Chavez to power after interim president Pedro Carmona dissolved the constitution and vowed to hold elections within a year.

Chavez has delivered cheap oil to the Bronx and other poor communities in the United States, he even offered to bring aid to the victims of Katrina, earlier gestures for which he get’s little credit.

These are issues that American reporters tend to ignore as reflected in the questions asked by reporters at his press conference. There’s every indication that these South American leaders see in Obama an American President they can approach and raise their real concerns which is consistent with Chavez giving the President a book on the history of American relations with Latin America.

This is where the press is more reflective of the Bush way of thinking, that “we the boss’ mentality, which Obama is changing in style and substance. Their questions and commentary particularly during the Latin American press conference have that strain of why are you being so friendly with our enemies. Why did you give Hugo Chavez that photo-op of you smiling and shaking hands?    

Nevertheless, Mr. Obama has demonstrated that brandishing the carrot as opposed to the stick has already resulted in positive overtures from Castro and Mr. Chavez who has indicated his interest in reopening the Venezuelan embassy in the United States.