Colombia's Plan Clinton

The right-wing government of Colombia, which stands accused of collaborating with militias that kill union workers, is feting Bill Clinton at a "Colombia is Passion" awards ceremony in New York City next month.

They're shelling out $40,000 a month to the Glover Park Group, a PR and lobbying firm packed with Clintonites, to push for a US-Colombia free trade agreement that has been widely criticized by Democratic members of Congress. And President Alvaro Uribe has also brought on board the PR firm Burson-Marsteller, run by Hillary's chief strategist, Mark Penn, to "educate members of the US Congress" about the trade deal and the annual $5 billion in anti-drug aid bestowed on the Colombian government by the US under Clinton's Plan Colombia, according to Justice Department filings obtained by the AP (and wisely first flagged by David Sirota.)

I guess that's what one calls synergy. And for those that read my recent article Hillary Inc. it shouldn't be the least bit surprising.

Comments (32)

1. Well, I'm sure FRANKGRITS of the Hillary Campaign will be able to fully explain this and assuage any worries.

   or WILL will show up at 10pm tonight and tell us how it's all part of the "Liberal Agenda" on Hillary's part.

   Posted by Mask at 05/29/2007 @ 10:38am

2. Posted by MASK

   And you'll be voting for her if she wins the nomination, right?

   Posted by mtspence05 at 05/29/2007 @ 10:46am

3. There is an article in the WaPo this morning on the success of the Welfare Reforms (due in no small part, to the role played by the Earned Income tax Credit). That 1996 Reform is Clinton's greatest social policy success!

   That said, it is VERY DISTASTEFUL that while Clinton was weak in foreign policy, he is, ironically, highly sought after by foreign interests (Dubai & Columbia), with substantial monetary incentives, of course.

   Come to think of, perhaps it is NOT so ironic....in line with the current crop of "meaning of IS" Dems he has `trained'!

   Posted by Happy at 05/29/2007 @ 11:00am

4. Maybe he's highly sought after because he's an outstanding politician and can get things done in DC.

   Lying about a blow job is nothing compared to what the current administration has lied about.

   Posted by mtspence05 at 05/29/2007 @ 11:11am

5. "Lying about a blow job is nothing .."

   I agree,

   but he did lie under oath, whether about a BJ or whatever, I think the lie is a misdemeaner, at any rate he screwed himself and us..and us...I never thought he should be impeached for that at all..he should have admitted and spared us the years of this same old arguement.

   ...and thinking about it after time, he didn't lie about the BJ, he did get one, it's just that he lied that it was or wsn't sex..and husbands have been paying for that one for years, trying to do the same...and still keep the cars, the house, the kids, the job, the bank accounts, credibility, the good will of the neighbors, the church, your wifes frieds..ect...

   Posted by john maasch at 05/29/2007 @ 11:42am

6. "Maybe he's highly sought after because he's an outstanding politician and can get things done in DC. "

   More than likely he can get anyone to believe anything about everyone...sorta..

   Posted by john maasch at 05/29/2007 @ 11:43am

7. Well, how they went from Whitewater to whether he was fooling around with Monica, I don't know. It was a highly partisan affair; the question about Monica never should have been asked. The incident only served to demonstrate the lengths the hard right are willing to go to get their way.

   And say what you want about Bill (I am not a fan), he is an outstanding politician.

   Posted by mtspence05 at 05/29/2007 @ 11:56am

8. I was sent this in an email this morning and it is good for both sides of the arguement in Iraq...very moving

   http://www.youtube.com/v/ervaMPt4Ha0&autoplay=1

   Posted by john maasch at 05/29/2007 @ 12:01pm

9. And you'll be voting for her if she wins the nomination, right?

   Posted by MTSPENCE05 05/29/2007 @ 10:46am

   Yes, because I don't want Fred Thompson or Mitt Romney picking Ruth Ginsberg's or John Paul Steven's replacement.

   The rest? You take the best you can get and don't bitch and moan for the next 40 years ...hoping for "the major crises that will allow for the ...hmmm....let's see....'overthrow or repudiation and the thorough replacement of an established government or political system by the people governed.'---dictionary.com"

   Posted by Mask at 05/29/2007 @ 12:30pm

10. Posted by MASK 05/29/2007 @ 12:30pm

    Curious. Who would you vote for if you could not vote for the majors? Let's say that Kucinich and Thompson were the respective tickets.

    This is the exact problem I have with Hillary versus whoever. Or would you still go Democratic? Even if Kucinich were the option?

    Posted by srjenkins at 05/29/2007 @ 2:17pm

11. Posted by SRJENKINS 05/29/2007 @ 2:17pm

    Kucinich or Thompson...I'd vote for Mr. "Dept. of Peace".

    At this point, we're not looking for major change coming out of the Left. They can't afford the massive social programs and the goofier pacifist stuff won't sell.

    Dennis would nominate left-of-center judges and justices...but even he knows he wouldn't get a "Noam Chomsky" or some "pro-slavery reparations" type appointed to the USSC, so the moderately liberal judges he COULD get passed...would be fine with me...same for Hillary or Obama or Edwards.

    Posted by Mask at 05/29/2007 @ 2:31pm

12. Posted by MASK 05/29/2007 @ 2:31pm

    Perhaps I should have gone the other way, Leiberman maybe. =) Leiberman vs. Thompson? Is there any combination that would get you going third-party?

    Posted by srjenkins at 05/29/2007 @ 2:42pm

13. Posted by SRJENKINS 05/29/2007 @ 2:42pm

    No, because "third party" is a wasted vote...period.

    Or worse (here's where the fireworks begins)....essentially a vote for the OPPOSING ideological party...i.e. Nader's votes in 2000. Once again, if ONLY 600 Nader votes in Florida had gone to Gore (and not "stuck to their principles")....No war in Iraq, no 3500 dead Americans, no HALF TRILLION in the hole, and likely a LOT less dead Iraqis.

    Lieberman isn't a social con. He's pro-gay rights, pro-choice (facts often ignored by his neo-con friends, as long as he keep supporting the war). Lieberman v. Thompson...still vote for Joe, and hope that he's not stupid enough to think that HIS OWN party in Congress will keep supporting a "Bush-like" view of Iraq.

    But "third party"?...might as well stay home like Empty Spence does...you'll do less damage.

    Posted by Mask at 05/29/2007 @ 3:23pm

14. Mask,

    You and I will never agree on the wisdom of widening the political spectrum and the short to medium term sacrifice that would have to be endured in that pursuit of democracy, but by the same token I can't let your statement about "wasted vote" simply go.

    To people like me there isn't a choice. Bush/Clinton/Bush/Clinton. in 20 years time we're likely to have the Bush twins on OPPOSING tickets! One will demand a large increase in corporate welfare and the other will counter with a massive increase in corporate welfare!

    The heated partisan rhetoric trend we've been on since at least Carter is not because there is a growing difference between ideologies it's because the two parties are getting closer and screaming about irrelevant differences is how they self justify that they are actually different. (It's like two siblings fighting in the back of the Tahoe).

    So while you vote in fear of a Supreme Court that might reverse Roe V Wade, I'd rather take those lumps in the pursuit of actual democratic choice that will be impossible to ever achieve unless the groundwork of an alternative idea set is created.

    Posted by freedomplease at 05/29/2007 @ 3:42pm

15. Posted by MASK 05/29/2007 @ 3:23pm

    Thanks. Answers my question. Probably goes without saying I agree with FREEDOMPLEASE.

    Posted by srjenkins at 05/29/2007 @ 3:49pm

16. Box of rocks is more than content with the status quo. He wants classic Repub economic policies, with the traditional Dems respect for individual rights. What he doesn't seem capable of comprehending is that the present economic policies are a threat to all of our freedoms, rights. Today it's one sector of the market that's been down sized, off shored, tomorrow it's another; sooner or later it will reach virtually all, directly or indirectly.

    Representative democracy doesn't function with huge disparities of wealth. Just take a gander at what we now have to choose from when we go to the voting booth. There is no choice, not when it comes to issues that matter most--economic security, well being. Whether you are pro choice or anti choice, at the end of the month the bills are due; if you don't have the money to pay them you get evicted, the electricity is cut off, your car is repossessed.

    Posted by mtspence05 at 05/29/2007 @ 4:01pm

17. Excertp from Arianna @ HuffPo: (bold mine)

    Here is the devastating verdict on this spin from Her Way: "Hillary had been against the war before she was for it -- before she was against it all over again."

    For anyone who has not given up on facts, Her Way shows unequivocally that from her journey from one of 77 senators to vote for the war to one of 14 to vote against the latest round of war funding, Hillary Clinton has taken just about every position on Iraq possible, save one: out in front. For her, it's been one long and ultimately very deadly round of follow the leader.

    Indeed, the book -- which examines Hillary's entire Senate career -- leaves the reader wondering when was the last time Hillary took the lead on anything. This may not be a problem if you are one of 100 senators but it is a major problem if you are the leader of the free world.

    I accept the possibility that HRC could be my next Prez.....but THERE ARE SERIOUS QUESTIONS of her Leadership ability that include not just the Iraq War.....

    IF an `08 GOP win is not to be, I'm definitely wavering on HRC being the most acceptable of the Dems! "Her Way" may become OUR Road to Perdition!

    Posted by Happy at 05/29/2007 @ 4:29pm

18. Posted by FREEDOMPLEASE 05/29/2007 @ 3:42pm

    Posted by SRJENKINS 05/29/2007 @ 3:49pm

    Guys, you want a Third Party. Build it. Don't come up with the "pure progressive" du jour every four years.

    The "Greens" haven't won ONE Congressional House seat, much less a Senate seat (Bernie Sanders became a Democrat to win last year).

    They've won some state seats (a handful), but that's it.

    Want a viable third party (obviously a progressive one, right?). Win some elections. Not the "flashy" ones, like President, but governorships, House and Senate seats, etc.

    But you know what that requires....hard work. Focusing the energy of the "national party" (all 500,000 members...hehe) on taking on a Democrat AND Republican in Colorado, New Jersey, Massachusetts...and winning the election. You get Governor "Green" elected...or 4-5 Representative "Greens"...or US Senator "Green" elected....and THEN you can seriously be taken as a viable choice for President.

    But this "The Little Rascals Run For President Every 4 Years" approach is a loser and has been since George Wallace and John Anderson.

    Posted by Mask at 05/29/2007 @ 4:33pm

19. Posted by MTSPENCE05 05/29/2007 @ 4:01pm\

    "Come the Revolution, comrade...I'll buy you a new hat!"---Warren Beatty "Reds" (1981)

    Posted by Mask at 05/29/2007 @ 4:36pm

20. BTW, again I ask...

    Where the heck is FRANKGRITS on this thread explaining how Mr Berman is dead wrong and "Hillary is the answer!!!"?

    Posted by Mask at 05/29/2007 @ 4:37pm

21. Want a viable third party (obviously a progressive one, right?). Win some elections. Not the "flashy" ones, like President, but governorships, House and Senate seats, etc.

    But you know what that requires....hard work. Posted by MASK

    It requires much, much more than hard work. A third party has too many obstacles to overcome as the system is currently set-up.

    Posted by mtspence05 at 05/29/2007 @ 4:49pm

22. A third party has too many obstacles to overcome as the system is currently set-up.

    Posted by MTSPENCE05 05/29/2007 @ 4:49pm

    Okay, let's pretend you actually have a PLAN...instead of just bitchin' for the next 40 years or until the "2nd Great Depression" and your perfect candidate rises on the backs of the proletariat....

    What's your idea on how to FIX the system, Empty....or are you empty of ideas and "waiting on a major crises" is all you've got?

    Posted by Mask at 05/29/2007 @ 5:02pm

23. Bitching? You're complaining about someone else bitching? You, the little pud, that's always trying to nit pick the authors of the site?

    Screw you, dip shit, we've been over this before. I'm not playing your little girl games.

    Posted by mtspence05 at 05/29/2007 @ 5:09pm

24. It is shocking and upsetting that just as more and more news about the collaboration between government officials, multinational corporations and paramilitary groups is surfacing, the Clintons are willing to lend a hand to Uribe's attempts to rebrand Colombia. Colombia is the most dangerous country in the world for union organizing with more trade union murders every year than the rest of the world combined.

    Check out the Labor Is Not A Commodity blog (http://laborrightsblog.typepad.com)for more views on this and other labor issues. This post has links to recent articles about Colombia: http://laborrightsblog.typepad.com/international_labor_right/2007/05/par amilitary_ti.html.

    Posted by tnewmILRF at 05/29/2007 @ 5:34pm

25. Posted by MASK 05/29/2007 @ 4:33pm

    You mean like Mayor? Currently five. You mean ballot access? Suddenly, Illinois looks a little more interesting in 2008 with its 21 electoral college votes and Greens on the ballot.

    I'm not worried about getting anyone elected President, just yet. I think the intermediate goal is you only need to get enough clout to be able to prevent someone from being President, a much lower bar. It's how the Christian Right operates. Let's take a page from the play book.

    Posted by srjenkins at 05/29/2007 @ 5:52pm

26. Posted by SRJENKINS

    Yeah, but the Christian Right gets nothing more than bones; the economic agenda of corporate America isn't affected.

    Posted by mtspence05 at 05/29/2007 @ 6:05pm

27. Posted by MTSPENCE05 05/29/2007 @ 6:05pm

    We agree on this point. I'll also take bones over nothing. Electoral politics isn't the end all to be all, but it does have a use.

    Posted by srjenkins at 05/29/2007 @ 6:43pm

28. Posted by SRJENKINS 05/29/2007 @ 5:52pm

    Mayors?....of what size city? Hunter Thompson was almost elected mayor of Woody Creek on the Freak Power Ticket.

    500,000 + city...maybe.

    Posted by Mask at 05/29/2007 @ 11:01pm

29. Posted by MASK 05/29/2007 @ 11:01pm

    Am I loosing my mind or did you say, "Win some elections. Not the "flashy" ones, like President, but governorships, House and Senate seats, etc." And you know as well as I do you need to win school boards and small town mayor races - you know the one's that aren't even kind of "flashy" - before you win "governorships, House and Senate seats, etc."

    Not that that bigger is out of reach, a Green came in second in San Francisco with 47% of the votes in 2003.

    Posted by srjenkins at 05/29/2007 @ 11:29pm

30. Posted by SRJENKINS 05/29/2007 @ 11:29pm

    Not sure what "contradiction" you're catching me in.

    I said "governorship, House and Senate seats". I didn't say "mayoral races", which (unless it's a MAJOR city) aren't that big a deal. And for "MAJOR city" I mean San Francisco, not Oakland. Or Chicago, not Madison WI. Or Los Angeles, not Bakersfield.

    I also said "WIN some election"...not "came in second in San Francisco with 47% of the votes in 2003."

    Again, people have been complaining about the need for a third PROGRESSIVE party since Clinton dragged the Democrats kicking and screaming into the Middle (and returned them to the White House after twelve years...maybe longer, if you consider Carter's win a product of Nixon's pardon).

    But nothing has come from it. Not one House seat. Not one Senate seat. Not one governorship. No major city mayor is a "Green". Minnesota got Jesse The Body elected, but Reform isn't typically considered a "progressive party".

    And again, the only self-described socialist who has won a US Senate seat...Bernie Sanders....switched from an Independent (as a House rep) TO a DEMOCRAT to run for the Senate.

    A Green becomes mayor of Berkeley?....hoo-rah! A Green becomes the US Senator from California?....now, you're talking a SERIOUS political party.

    Posted by Mask at 05/30/2007 @ 09:32am

31. Posted by MASK 05/30/2007 @ 09:32am

    You go on about Florida votes and Nader at every opportunity...and you claim Greens are not serious? Interesting.

    You talk about the hard work of building a party and then complain it isn't built up to your standards of seriousness? Interesting.

    Look, we agree. There is work to be done, but let's also not pretend that things are not happening because it's not passing your sniff test yet.

    I'll make this prediction for you - in the next decade or two, Green party votes will be the difference between a Republican and Democratic presidency, again. When it happens, you can blame your come to the right ideology, like should should be doing for 2000. Perhaps then you, and the Democratic party, will understand just how SERIOUS the situation is...

    Posted by srjenkins at 05/30/2007 @ 2:06pm

32. Posted by SRJENKINS 05/30/2007 @ 2:06pm

    SRJ, Nader taking votes from Florida and causing Gore to lose in 2000....was not a "serious" Green candidacy. There was no way Nader would have won the Presidency...no SERIOUS way. And all he did was cost it for Gore. Again, 600 Nader voters decide that "lesser evil" isn't quite as bad as "greater evil"....the world would be a much better place today.

    Look at history as a guide, or hint. Last "third party" to successfully form was in.....1854. The Whigs, Free-Soilers, and some Democrats formed...."The Republican Party".

    Since then it's been ...Eugene V Debs winning 6% ONCE....Wallace winning 13% ONCE...and Perot winning 19% ONCE. And in all those cases, the OPPOSITE of the third party's wishes was enacted....Wilson got us into World War-I over the objections of the Socialists....Nixon helped create affirmative action and school busing went through....and Perot got knocked on his butt by Al Gore ('member him?) on Larry King and got NAFTA passed.

    Also in all three cases....the parties collapsed. Socialists vanished, even into the Great Depression. "American Independents" gave up and joined the Republicans. And the Reform Party got a wrestler elected and petered-away to "Natural Law Party" status.

    Posted by Mask at 05/30/2007 @ 3:24pm