I think its time to move away from the Cuban trade embargo.
It hasn't significantly changed the behavior of the Castro regime. That the U.S. would be willing - in some circumstances - to impose an embargo for over 40 years might have a deterrent effect on other countries. However, if a foreign country is weighing actions that might lead to an embargo, I suspect the difference between a 46 or a 50 year embargo would have a small marginal deterrent effect. Cuba is no longer the client state of a hostile great power. This recent Government Accountability Office report (ECONOMIC SANCTIONS. Agencies Face Competing Priorities in Enforcing the U.S. Embargo on Cuba, November 2007) suggests that the embargo may be interfering with other important U.S. security efforts.
Reform would reduce the burden on Cubans, create more opportunities for Cuban-Americans to reconnect with their country of origin and families, create opportunities for new business for U.S. firms (in fact we relaxed the embargo a few years ago and now sell hundreds of millions of dollars of agricultural products to Cuba - The Fading U.S. Embargo on Exports to Cuba), provide new recreational and cultural opportunities for all U.S. citizens, reduce the scope of the Cuban government to exercise dictatorial powers, resonate well with world public opinion, and, by suggesting an improvement in Cuban-U.S. relations, give Chavez pause.
Do any of the Presidential candidates think this way? Some do, but they are behind in the pack, or have left the race. The Council on Foreign Relations summarized the candidates' positions on the Cuban embargo: The Candidates on Cuba Policy (December 11). So has 2008 Election ProCon.org
I've excerpted selections on some key candidates from both sites in the table below. Both sites have information on additional candidates.