On March 28, 2007 Fidel Castro wrote an article in the Cuban journal, Granma.  He noted that one year earlier, on March 26, 2006, George Bush had articulated a US energy policy with a central role for agriculture in solving the energy crisis.  Castro quoted from an AP report: "The AP states: “President Bush touted the benefits of ‘flexible fuel’ vehicles running on ethanol and biodiesel on Monday, meeting with automakers to boost support for his energy plans."  Castro referred to this as "a sinister policy," and said that "the tragedy does not lie in reducing those energy costs but in the idea of converting food into fuel."  Castro went on the say that Bush's proposal was totally lacking in realism, that the numbers didn't add up, and that converting food into fuel would have disastrou consequences for food supplies. 
That was the first time I had seen such comments being made about the biofuel idea.  Mainstream media comments on CNN, Fox, NBC, and the like mostly (if my memory is accurate) focused on the positive change in Bush's attitudes; thank God that Bush is awakening to realize we have a real energy problem.  More recently the media have noticed a food crisis world wide, with food riots breaking out in many countries, rationing imposed by some governments and by some American retailers (e.g., Costco and rice), and inflation romping for food staples.
So, I ask, isn't it a good idea to listen to people outside one's group of friends?  If we were talking to, and more importantly listening to, people outside the usual set of talking heads on our media wouldn't we get exposed to a wider set of ideas--some of which happen to be right.  Who would have dreamed that wisdom about our capitalist system would be coming from Fidel Castro and not from the President's best economic advisors?  
I mention this on TPM because the question of whether America should talk to those outside the scope of its favorites is the focus of controversy in the past few days.  Bush and McCain have made it a campaign point, and even Senator Clinton has been calling such talks naive.
I suspect that Obama wouldn't help himself right now by point out that Fidel Castro had words that appear in retrospect to be wise on this one issue.  Surely the Republicans (and Clinton) would jump on him for this (even though we would have been better off listening to Castro one year ago).  But doesn't this illustrate that we are stupid if we talk with and listen to only those who have be certified as our allies and friends?