During the presidential campaign, Barack Obama signaled that he would engage in direct diplomacy with leaders such as the Castro brothers in Cuba and Venezuela's Hugo Chávez. This was welcome news throughout Latin America, where relations with the "colossus of the north" had plummeted to unprecedented lows during the Bush administration. 

The Obama administration subsequently sent mixed signals on its planned course for U.S. relations with Latin America. But it now appears the administration is carefully re-calibrating its position ahead of its first big test in the region: the Summit of the Americas meeting in April. This is the first time the hemispheric Summit will be held in the Caribbean (Trinidad and Tobago), though Cuba is still barred from participating, since its membership to the Organization of American States (OAS) was suspended in 1962. Hopefully, this Cold War holdover will be corrected at the upcoming meeting.

After winning the election, Obama effectively retracted his original olive branch to Chávez in an interview with Spanish-language network Univisión. Speaking to the Latino audience, Obama accused the Venezuelan President of being "a force that has interrupted progress in the region." This was an almost verbatim echo of Condoleezza Rice's stance on Chávez, who she claimed was a "negative force in the region."

Obama added, "We need to be firm when we see this news, that Venezuela is exporting terrorist activities or supporting malicious entities like the FARC." Chávez responded by saying that the new U.S. President had the same "stench" as Bush, who Chávez habitually referred to as "Mr. Danger."

But then came a subtle shift in the administration's rhetoric. First, Bolivia held a referendum on its new constitution, which was easily approved on Jan. 25. Then, Venezuelans' voted approvingly on Feb. 15 to lift term limits for all elected officials, including president. The Bush administration would have likely dismissed these votes as the anti-democratic ploys of "radical populist" leaders. But the Obama State Department responded quietly and cautiously.

On Bolivia, State Department spokesman Robert Wood said, "We congratulate the Bolivian people on the referendum. And you know, I don’t think the results are final at this point, but we look forward to working with the Bolivian Government in ways we can to further democracy and, you know, prosperity in the hemisphere." A follow-up question wondered whether the referendum really "furthered democracy" in Bolivia and Wood didn't take the bait; he simply re-iterated his previous statement.

On Venezuela, prior to the term-limits referendum, Wood called the vote an "internal matter." Period. And after Venezuelan voters abolished term-limits, another State Department spokesman, Gordon Duguid, was asked about the referendum:

QUESTION: Do you have reaction to the result of the referendum, the fact that Chavez has won and now he can stay in power almost indefinitely?

MR. DUGUID: Well, it’s my understanding that the referendum took place in a fully democratic process, that there were – although there were some troubling reports of intimidation of opponents, for the most part, this was a process that was fully consistent with democratic practice. However, democratic practice also requires that the government govern well and govern in the interest of all of the people of the diverse interests that are present in Venezuela.

QUESTION: But what about the result of the --

MR. DUGUID: It was a matter for the Venezuelan people. And as I said, the process was held consistent with democratic principles. Therefore, we have always sought to have a positive relationship with Venezuela. We will continue to seek to maintain a positive relationship with Venezuela. But their democratic processes need to be taken into account on our part. But also on our part, we look for governments who have achieved a positive democratic result to use that in a positive manner.

Compared to the Bush administration, Obama's spokespeople at Foggy Bottom have evidently moved the goal-post for constructive engagement with Chávez and other left-leaning leaders in Latin America – particularly, Bolivia's Evo Morales, Ecuador's Rafael Correa, and even Cuba's Raúl Castro.

Still, Duguid's qualifications of the referendum should give those of us hoping for better relations some pause: "... democratic practice also requires that the government govern well and govern in the interest of all of the people ..." as well as "... we look for governments who have achieved a positive democratic result to use that in a positive manner." Again, this sounds an awful lot like the Bush administration. When discussing Latin America during her confirmation hearing, Condoleezza Rice said, "And we will insist that leaders who are elected democratically have an obligation to govern democratically."

Latin American governments have undeniably respected the rules when it comes to electoral processes, so it's time that the U.S. government stop lecturing them on "democracy" – particularly, considering Washington's sordid role in undermining democratic governments in the region and its past coziness with dictatorships.

The upcoming Summit of the Americas provides the Obama administration with a unique opportunity to improve relations with Latin America. Obama still counts on an unprecedented amount of regional goodwill. It would be a shame to squander this opportunity.