In the past eight years, the Andean nation has gone from dud to dynamo: foreign investment has risen 250 percent. Its stock index is up 15 percent this year, and 35 percent (versus Brazil's 14 percent) over the decade.

Since Margolis makes the comparison between Colombia and Brazil, let's look at a more meaningful one: In 2000, per capita GDP in Colombia was $6,200, and Brazil's was $6,150 (figures adjusted for purchasing power). In 2009, the last year available, Colombia's was $8,200, and Brazil's was $9,400. So Brazilians, who started the century just slightly behind Colombia in economic output, are now 13 percent ahead--regardless of how well those nations' stock investors are doing.

On top of that, Colombia is "the only major country in Latin America in which the gap between rich and poor has increased in recent years," as the Washington Post's Juan Forero (4/19/10) reported, citing the U.N. Economic Commission on Latin America. Twenty-three percent of Colombians live in extreme poverty, versus 7 percent of Brazilians, according to the UN.

It seems that Margolis picks his "duds" and "dynamos" based on ideology, not economics.

Margolis argues that when Iranian protesters used Twitter to criticize their government, it was seen as a "tool of revolution and freedom." Not so in Venezuela, though, where Chavez "has figured out how to twist this tool into one of repression."

"Far from embracing the democratic spirit of the Web," Margolis writes, Chavez ("the Venezuelan strongman")  want to use the technology to get people "to spy on each other." Margolis writes:

El Presidente has hired a staff of 200 to deal with tweeted "requests, denunciations, and other problems," which have resulted in actions against allegedly credit-stingy banks and currency speculators.

Banks and currency speculators? Well, that sounds chilling indeed.

Margolis adds that Chavez is "considering going a step further, and ruling that all Venezuelan websites must move from U.S.-based servers to domestic ones--which would, of course, make them far easier to control. Big Brother would be proud." That would seem to be a reference to a current debate in the Venezuelan parliament, so it's unclear how Chavez might "rule" that this happen. And it's worth reiterating that, as Chavez supporters have noted for years, the private media in the country are intensely critical of his politics, and were instrumental in supporting the coup that briefly removed him from power.

If Chavez wants to use media as a "tool of repression," he's not doing a very good job.

Russia's campaign to balance U.S. power and prestige around the globe has found a new and willing partner--Latin America--and Washington may be the unwitting facilitator.... Moscow is cutting deals across the region, selling the latest hardware, from rifles to fighter jets, in exchange for influence and access to the area's plentiful oil and gas reserves.

And the United States has only itself and its pesky ethics to blame:

Ironically, one reason for the budding East/West axis may be Washington's own rigid security agenda. The U.S. has imposed restrictions on arms sales to many nations suspected of being soft on terrorism or roiled by internal conflict. So, many on that watch list have turned to Moscow, which asks no questions. Venezuela's Hugo Chávez, for example, has snapped up some $4 billion in Russian weapons in recent years.

Reality check: The United States is by far the world's largest arms dealer, making $37.8 billion in arms deals in 2008--68 percent of the world's arms traffic for that year, according to the Congressional Research Service (New York Times, 9/6/09).  Russia was a distant third with $3.5 billion.

And the United States did not actually limit its weapon sales to peaceful nations.  Among countries "roiled by internal conflicts" that have bought U.S. arms in recent years are Colombia, Morocco, Pakistan, India, Indonesia, Iraq, Yemen, Armenia, Azerbaijan.... The list goes on.  Apparently unlike Moscow, Washington does ask questions--like, "Is your credit good?"
Update: See Extra!'s January 2010 cover story, "Newsweek’s Name-Calling Neoliberal: Meet Mac Margolis, Their Man in Latin America," by Peter Hart--just released online.

Ok, except Lula's approval ratings are neck and neck with Uribe's, and Bachelet's have been on the rise and are pretty close--a main reason her party's candidate is looking weak is because there's a challenger to his left who's peeling off a hefty chunk of votes. Lula's party's candidate isn't all that well-known; once he starts campaigning for her (the election isn't until next year), observers expect her to jump in the polls. And a majority of Uruguayans want Uruguay's Vazquez to run for president again, even though a second consecutive term is barred by the constitution. All of which makes Margolis's argument about "pragmatism" (defined here as "shifting right") and the "middle ground" basically nonsensical.