I agree with you about Krugman. Also I lived in Massachusetts when the mandates were being instituted and I hated them. It meant getting less money in my paycheck (not big to begin with) for health care that I didn't really think was very good quality. (For example, I still received a $1000 bill from a clinic for a "check-up"...still not completely cleared up).

But I thought that the Cooper story also illustrated something that I have been worried about for a long time, which is that Clinton doesn't know how to disagree with people. Yes she is a fighter, but sometimes she fights the very people who could otherwise be on her side. I remember watching a video of Code Pink the anti-war demonstrators giving her a grade "F" for her Iraq war vote--this was a couple of years ago, and she was sweet as could be until it became clear that this was not a photo opp, and they were criticising her. She became cold, abrupt and furiously strode out of the room. Yes, McCain has a temper too, and so did Bill, so I'm not saying that a temper is a terrible thing in a politician--but I think she doesn't win people over by her treatment of them. When I watched her on t.v. attacking Obama supporters and blaming them for the fallout from her remarks on LBJ I thought, great. Civil war in the Democratic Party. Didn't she know Obama supporters are supposed to be for her if she wins? Why attack your own when you don't have to?

I'll vote for her if she fairly wins against Obama in the contest for the General Election, but the article about Jim Cooper reminds me of my reservations about her. And you're right that Krugman is a lost cause. Funny that he's now parroting the Clinton talking points about the bad and terrible Obama supporters. We're really horrible, horrible people.

If John Edwards endorses her after once calling her a "force for the status quo" it will be truly disappointing and a low moment for me in this campaign.

Bryan,

you make a valid point. I'm an Obama supporter and I don't watch these networks for exactly the reasons you mention. It IS a big deal the fact that these male pundits do not respect Hillary Clinton/and or the Clinton family. I don't even want to try to analyze why the Clintons are free game, but the more they make these mistakes, the worse for them (the networks) it is.

I think as news people they have a journalistic responsibility to treat all the candiates with equal respect, and falling short of that they lose credibility.

Why don't we all just boycott MSNBC until something changes? I don't mind helping them to lose money--until the general election is over? Would that be so terrible? Why don't they get some analysts that are less sexist and macho and for lack of a better word--dumb?

I do agree with Alex though that the journalist who got caught saying this is no more to blame than the network(s) that created a free-for-all entertainment climate where they are supposed to be informing the public. Does anyone watch public television anymore--or have their funds been too hatcheted by Republicans? News for profit (except, ahem, Salon of course) tends to cater to the lowest common denominator.

We need an American BBC.

"Obama wants to extend free trade into the rest of Latin America. He favors a free trade agreement with Peru."

and as Xanadu says, what does Clinton stand for? Why do you keep calling Obama's supporters neolibs? What--in your definition--is a neolib?

and what do you know:'

http://usliberals.about.com/od/2008candidatesonissues/a/DemFreeTrade.htm

Clinton has voted FOR free trade agreements WITHOUT major modifications.

Obama has voted generally FOR free trade agreements WITH major modifications.

Edwards generally voted AGAINST free trade agreements and when they were passing anyway FOR major modifications...

anonymous, you are against the wrong candidate in this case. Obama's strength (and weakness) is his willingness to learn in his areas of weakness. He is already in a better position than Clinton is, and with the push of voters, he might take up the same position you have.

Clinton, on the other hand, has 35 years of the same kind of politics. Her early work was for a notoriously union-busting law firm. Do you think that she will ever change her position on free trade, other than to win votes in an election? Look at her record long and hard as a working American. Sure she says she's against it when its convenient--but she's voted consistently for it.

And there's this: "Both Clintons are active leaders of the Democratic Leadership Council, a pro-corporate interests, centrist Democratic organization that fully supports U.S. free trade arrangements."

Just saying.

you don't mention that you presented your famous refutation at two in the morning while I was sleeping. And I never said she voted against it, but that she had spoken against it, and not helped to sponsor it.

And I can't help but notice that you haven't mentioned anything about the information I gave you about Free Trade Agreements and voting records. Do you have a response or are you going to wait until two in the morning to blister me again?

* sigh * the posting in here have become less fun than before. If your response is just more ad hominem, then nevermind.