In Hillary Clinton's attempt to quell blue-collar fears she is returning to the free trade roots of her husband, former President Bill Clinton, a once mundane trade deal is now being placed under the microscope.

"The Colombia free trade deal, in my view, is not appropriate because of the history of suppression and targeted killings of labor organizers in Colombia," Mrs. Clinton told CNN. The former first lady's opposition to the bill came into question after news broke a top adviser met with Colombian officials and Mr. Clinton's past public support of the agreement re-surfaced.

Over the weekend, Mark Penn, a top Clinton adviser, stepped down from his role in the campaign after it was discovered he met with the Colombian ambassador to discuss the pending trade agreement. Mr. Penn was not acting as a surrogate of the Clinton campaign.

Mrs. Clinton is also plagued by Mr. Clinton's past words, as Politico's Ben Smith reported on a Colombian 2005 news report highlighting Mr. Clinton's support for such an agreement.

Responding to Colombian President Alvaro Uribe call that the U.S. expedite passage of the trade deal, Mr. Clinton reportedly stated, "I am in favor of the free trade agreement and it is my hope that we will find the right formula to reach the agreement." Mrs. Clinton has since acknowledged she and her husband disagree on the issue.

The question is: should we really believe Hillary Clinton? Her husband supports and was paid to support the Colombian trade deal. The DLC supports it. Many of her advisers support it or have even lobbied in favor of it. Many of her prominent backers, like Senator Evan Bayh, support it.

Hillary lied about opposing NAFTA but she wants us to believe her about Colombia. I have no doubt that Hillary is capable of standing up to her husband and taking contrary positions on the issues, but I don't think she has any credibility on trade issues. Yes, she can disagree with her husband, I just don't believe she does in this case.