Chelsea Clinton, who now voluntarily references the Monica Lewinsky scandal at campaign events, "has gone from a behind-the-scenes supporter of Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton to her mother's most effective surrogate," writes Anne E. Kornblut of The Washington Post in a front-page story.

That sounded weird to me.  Why would Chelsea be voluntarily bringing that subject up all of a sudden?

Bob Somerby helpfully supplies the truth:

And note the tricks these life-forms use. Why did Kornblut say that Clinton had brought up "the Monica Lewinsky scandal?" Duh! Because Clinton hadn't mentioned Lewinsky herself! Go ahead: Watch in horrified stupefaction as a leering cyborg types on:

KORNBLUT (continuing directly): Speaking to a packed crowd of college students and recounting her mother's history of working with Republicans, the youngest Clinton talked for a minute about Sen. Lindsey O. Graham (R-S.C.), who as a House member during the impeachment hearings against President Bill Clinton was "one of the people who prosecuted my father in the 1990s," she said. Not "someone you would think would be an ally for someone with the last name Clinton, the 28-year-old added wryly.

Nor someone her audience would expect her to mention...

You see? Clinton hadn't mentioned Lewinsky at all! But Kornblut wanted to mention Monica--wanted to say her name very much. And so, like that a slick decision! Lindsey Graham was close enough! Kornblut said Clinton had mentioned the "Lewinsky scandal," not Miss Lewinsky herself.

Now I have just returned from three weeks in Africa so I missed bits and pieces here and there but the attacks on Colombia and on President Uribe on various blogs took me by surprise. Thankfully no such vile was found on TalkLeft. Reading John Amato's comments and Sam Stein's comments on the Huffington Post however left me not just perturbed but rather anxious. That Colombia suffers from an image problem I won't deny hence hiring a PR firm like Burton-Marstellar is a bit of a necessity. But Colombia is not nor has it ever been a country like Chile under Pinochet or any other dictatorship. Military rule in Colombia has been the exception not the norm. It hasn't even happened in my lifetime. The last military govt was 1953-1958 and then before that 1838-1840.  That covers that.
Colombia is not a right-wing dictatorship. For most of our history, Colombia has been a model two party (Liberals and Conservatives) state with regular, free and competitive elections. True the parties had machines and operate on patronage but that's also true of the US. Chicago comes to mind.

Our troubles are essentially tied to the drug trade. Eliminate the drug trade (I personally favour legalisation) and many of Colombia's problems are ameliorated. Even though the FARC is now it seems in a death spiral thanks to Uribe's carrot and stick approach, someone else will rise to take control of the cocaine trade because there is too much money in it. So while FARC now seems defeated, we will have a new foe to fight.

Personally I am pretty tired of fighting this battle. Unlike most of you, I have casualities to report. I have suffered two kidnapping attempts, the last in 1994 when I worked for the govt of Cesar Gaviria in the Foreign Ministry. My aunt Sophie was killed by a Pablo Escobar bomb intended for a judge. He missed the judge but killed 18 others including my aunt Sophie, my grandmother's sister. Then there are so many other friends. Benjamin Barney, 88, at the time of his death. Shot in the back of the head on his ranch by the FARC. My neighbors from childhood Mauricio Garces and his father Eduardo Garces. Kidnapped by the FARC in 1994 and never heard or seen since.

The FARC's resurgence in Colombia is tied to their control of the cocaine trade after the demise of Pablo Escobar and the rival Cali cartel in the mid-1990s. Between 1994 and 2004, we were a country held hostage. No more. Thanks to Uribe.

The trade unionists problem is not one many Colombians find to be a problem. But then you need to understand the history of Colombian sindicalism. There are 3 major labour groups in Colombia: one is tied to the Catholic Church, another (the largest) is independent and the last is tied to the Colombia Communist Party, the political front for the FARC. Most of the murders (some were actually battles with police or the Army though most were in fact extra-judicial murders) have effected the last union, the CUT. Despite there being three labour unions in Colombia, union membership has always been low by international standards. Only 4.6% of Colombian workers are unionized (Mexico by comparison is 16.2% and the US 13%).

Next the murders which total 2,245 according to Amnesty International are now basically a historical event. Obama got himself in trouble in his speech in Philadelphia when he stated that over 200 trade unionists were being killed yearly in Colombia. That last happened in 2001 and Uribe can hardly be held accountable for that since at the time he didn't hold any political office. Andres Pastrana Arango was President then. In the last year, 26 trade unionists have been killed. I am not sure how many of these are extra-judicial killings. They are a problem. We would rather arrest them but it is hard to forgive when one's own family and friends have too been murdered.

The image problem that CUT trade unionists  have in Colombia is that some of them are nothing more than members of the FARC. In 2004, two CUT union leaders blew their arms off while constructing a pipe bomb. In 2001, another died again in a self-caused mistep explosion in Yumbo, Valle. And then there is the 1998 bombing of the Cano Limon oleoduct where CUT union leaders were captured after planting explosives.  Hard for us to have much sympathy.

Uribe might as well be god in Colombia. No other President even comes close, not even Cesar Gaviria, my former boss or Carlos Lleras Restrepo or even Carlos Lleras Camargo, legendary Presidents from the 1960s who are responsible for Colombia's slow but steady pace of economic growth. Colombia holds the world record for longest uninterrupted economic growth at over 45 years. But Uribe is special, we wonder who can replace him in 2010. 70% approval ratings, 90% after the raid in Ecuador that killed Raul Reyes and one other member of the FARC secretariat, a first. Within two weeks, another of the seven man Secretariat was dead, killed by his own men, his hand cut off as a macabre prize to prove to authorities that he was dead. Macabre to you but for me real joy. I cried when I heard the news. I am an athiest but I went to Mass to give praise after Reyes was dead.    

The day after Reyes was killed in February I went to a Colombian restaurant here in San Francisco. It was full. We danced, we ate, we sang the National Anthem and we thanked Uribe. He has saved the country. He has made Colombia liveable. We are tired of war. The FARC is not an option and we want them to either surrender and be re-absorbed into civil society. That's Uribe's carrot. The stick is that if you don't surrender, we will take the war to you. That's why the leadership has had to take refuge in Venezuela or Ecuador. Chavez is now clearly supporting international terrorism and the US should take note.

The irony of the FTA with Colombia is that in terms of our exports to the US, it matters little. Our exports already receive preferential tariff treatment under the Andean Trade Promotion Argeement This would only lock them in without having to get Congressional approval every two years. The benefits are largely for the US. It opens up Colombia to American agriculture, industrial products and consumer services duty free. No smallstep for us. It's likely to impact our grain manufacture and yet we in Colombia are willingly to run the risk. Largely in gratitude because we also think that Plan Colombia, the aid that you provided has made a difference in our battle against the FARC.

So, seeing that she has pledged to go all the way to the convention, there will have to be a choice between Obama and Clinton by the DNC, or a vote
for a joint ticket.

If the unity option is on the floor, who gets to be Prez and who Veep?  Well, I'm a supporter of seniority (in general), and that seems like a fair
characteristic to throw into the consideration between Obama and Clinton. Clinton is definitely his seniority in many, many respects in my opinion.

I'm interested on your opinion on this, whether it would be good or bad to
have a unity ticket at all, and whether it's clear/opaque as to whether
Obama could realistically function under Clinton and whether Clinton could
function under Obama (I mention this particularly because I feel Clinton's
policies go much farther than Obama's (such as health care), and Obama as
Prez would surely limit Clinton's effectiveness).

There are only two reasons I can think of that a comedian would continue to tell jokes that don't elicit laughter.

1)  He's a lazy SOB and so doesn't try to create new material.

-or-

I think she really doesn't like Hillary, and I think she was being sincere.  But you don't know, I don't know.

Aren't you glad she said it? If she hadn't, you wouldn't know how much you dislike her and disagree with her.  If she had censored herself, you wouldn't know how Randi Rhodes really feels and would not have complete info to form an opinion of her.

That's why I want people to speak their minds uncensored...so I know how to feel about them.  

Then she turns around and says that.

So who knows what she believes? I think she was pandering to the audience, which was made up of Obama supporters who had paid to be there. Rightly or wrongly, she felt that they would agree with her.

NY times on Obama experience

They conveniently left out that he was in indonesia from 7-11 and that Clinton did more than just meet with CIA station chiefs and see native dances.  And WHY did they leave out that he said he didn't NEED an experienced VP?!