The RNC is spotlighting this interview with Barack Obama by the Orlando Sentinel, and spotlighting his comment about Chavez:

ON CASTRO/CHAVEZ: I would be willing to initiate such talks with leaders of countries adversarial to the United States. There would be a lot of preparation. The first steps would not be to pre-judge all the items on the list. The freedom of the Cuban people would be my top goal with President Raul Castro. As well as the release of political prisoners, democracy and the freedom of religious worship. One of the obvious high priorities in my talks with President Hugo Chavez would be the fermentation of anti-American sentiment in Latin America, his support of FARC in Colombia and other issues he would want to talk about. It is important to understand that ignoring these countries has not led to improved behavior on their part and it has not served our national security interests. There needs to be a shift in foreign politics and return to traditional foreign politics that were supported by both Republicans and Democrats in the past.

The RNC asks, “Obama would let Chavez set agenda at meetings?”, but I actually don’t think that’s the comment to worry about. I’m a little more troubled by the preceding comment, “The first steps would not be to pre-judge all the items on the list.”

Would we “pre-judge” Chavez’s financial support of FARC? It is unreasonable for the United States to declare financially supporting terrorism is a bad thing?

I’m having a hard time picturing diplomacy in which our stated position is to not “pre-judge” the actions and policies of hostile regimes, or, presumably, their grievances with us. Is the idea that after the face-to-face presidential summit, we would judge these dictators’ actions?

Secondly, Obama talks about Chavez and Castro like he’s never heard them speak in their marathon oratories. When Chavez says, “We must confront the privileged elite who have destroyed a large part of the world,” … okay, maybe that won’t bother Obama, as it sounds a lot like Jeremiah Wright’s “where white folks’ greed runs a world in need” line, the sermon that brought Obama back to religious faith, according to his autobiography.

And maybe Obama isn’t instinctively irked by rhetoric like “capitalism leads us straight to hell.”

But it’s tough to be optimistic about negotiations with a man who declares “the North American empire of being the biggest menace to our planet,” accuses the U.S. of plotting a coup to steal oil “as they did in Iraq,” says our nation is run by “an imperialist government, one that says it fights against terrorism but protects it,” and so on.

When you see Chavez comparing Israel’s war with Lebanon in the summer of 2006 to “what Hitler did to the Jews,” and calling that military action “a new Holocaust,” you begin to understand why Chavez would be chummy with Ahmadinejad. It’s less clear why an American President would reward such talk with a face-to-face summit. (Visiting the University of Tehran, Chavez told Iranian students, “If the U.S. empire succeeds in consolidating its dominance, then the humankind has no future. Therefore, we have to save the humankind and put an end to the U.S. empire.”)

I think if the American president goes to Caracas or Havana, they’ll be subjected to a lecture and harangued for all sorts of plots and sins, real and imagined. And then… what? Does Obama say, “yes, you’re right,” apologize and make concessions in order to work out some deal? Or does he tell Chavez to shove it? I’ll be the first to applaud a President Obama if it’s the latter, but I’m not optimistic — and it would seem to be a sad and predictable messy end to a naive idea.