When I hear “Columbia” the first thing that comes to my mind is Rocky Horror, so I got a chuckle today when Arianna Huffington asked that same question in her blog post: The Clinton-Colombia Connection: It Goes Back a Long Way. Rocky Horror wasn’t one of her answers, but I started laughing because I was picturing Bill and Hillary Clinton as Riff Raff and Magenta. Just think: Time Warp. Elbow sex. (Gong!) “Master! Dinner is prepared!”
But we’ve seen this movie and we know how it ends. Can’t we just send the Clintons back to Transylvania now, please?
While on vacation in the Keys, a couple of my Pennsylvania friends asked me why they should vote for Obama instead of Clinton. Well the Pennsylvania primary is a little over a week away, so here’s another reason I’m passing along to my friends. Please read Arianna’s blog (linked up there in the first paragraph) and then we’ll discuss.
OK, you’re back. To summarize: Bill Clinton snuck a lucrative and controversial aid package for Columbia through Congress when he was president under the auspices of the “war” on drugs. (A “war” that’s been a huge success — nobody does drugs anymore!) Since leaving the White House, Bill Clinton has made tens of millions in speaking fees worldwide in places like Columbia where he was paid $800,000 from a Columbian pro-free trade group. Now Hillary is running for president and says she opposes the Columbia free-trade proposal. All this, plus a senior Clinton campaign advisor, Mark Penn, has been consulting with Columbian officials trying to help them pass the proposal Hillary says she opposes. Columbia fired Penn, but in the Clinton campaign, he just lost his title (but still remains as a senior advisor).
I think the Clintons are playing all sides of this crooked fence, and I think Hillary’s supposed opposition to the Columbia free-trade proposal is only political posturing. I know all politicians posture, including Obama. But with Hillary, this is more than just for expediency. This is more of the same revolving door politics where the consultants and lobbyists and advisors are all interchangeable parts getting rich by fleecing the U.S. taxpayer. Poor old Bubba Clinton and his doting wife have made over $100 million since they left the White House, including big-bucks speaking engagements in countries that received a lot of U.S. aid while Bill Clinton was president. It’s not as blatant (or as lucrative) as Bush-Cheney war profiteering, but it’s hard to see where the interests of the American public are benefitting from these arrangements.
I know Hillary connects with a lot of people, but I look at her actions and her motivations and I don’t like what I see — a politician who will do or say anything to gain more power. And it’s a power she would not hesitate to use for her long-term personal gain when it’s politically feasible.
And for today’s bonus reason to vote for Obama over Clinton, let me throw out a few thoughts about the Clinton campaign itself. Hillary likes to say she’s ready on day one, but was her campaign ready on day one? Here’s what I saw the past couple months: a campaign that was expecting a coronation on Super Tuesday, and when that didn’t happen they didn’t have a game plan and lost a dozen straight states over the next month. She regained her footing with a couple wins in big states, but she’s still behind in all counts (delegates, votes, states) with virtually no chance of surpassing Obama. Now it’s been weeks of say anything, do anything Hillary — whining about the rules she agreed to (Michigan and Florida), asking the superdelegates to overturn the lead Obama holds, and going negative and with her kitchen sink approach of distractions, distortions, and stale allegations with a fresh coat of lipstick.
Clinton has quite simply run a terrible campaign. Why should she be entrusted to run the country?