China vs. Colombia: When human rights matter. And when they don't.

Judging by her Asian tour, Hillary Clinton clearly thinks she is more realistic about the world than her predecessor. The Secretary of State said, for instance, that pressing China on human rights "can't interfere" with cooperation between Washington and Beijing on other issues like the economic crisis or climate change. But strangely -- or perhaps not so strangely -- Mrs. Clinton and her boss seem to have a far more pinched conception of realpolitik when it comes to Colombia.

Recall that last year Nancy Pelosi rewrote House rules to scuttle the Bush Administration's free-trade agreement with Bogotá solely on human-rights grounds, even after the pact had been rewritten to include new union protections. President Obama explained last fall that he was opposed because "The history in Colombia right now is that labor leaders have been targeted for assassination, on a fairly consistent basis, and there have not been prosecutions."

Actually, antilabor killings have dropped by almost 87% under President Álvaro Uribe, and convictions have gone up sharply. Yet neither Mr. Obama nor his top diplomat have lifted a finger to move the Colombia deal -- which would open new markets for U.S. exporters when most Colombian goods already enter the U.S. duty-free, as well as strengthen a crucial ally in Latin America. This one should be easy, but the AFL-CIO and the rest of organized labor have ordered that no vote ever occur, and Democrats have so far obeyed.

At least there's some logic to Mrs. Clinton's economic pragmatism toward China, especially given its importance in buying U.S. Treasurys to finance Mr. Obama's spending programs. But the Administration's Colombia calculation has less to do with a foreign policy rooted in the nation's best interests and more with the special interests that own the Democratic Party