The reasons why our msm won't cover the breaking revelations about HRC and NAFTA-GATE.

[IsItJustMe]

It has become clear now that HRC's campaign had contacted the Canadian government and told them to take Hillary's rhetoric against NAFTA as a grain of salt.

http://www.thespec.com/News/CanadaWorld/article/335450

Our msm made such a big deal out of it that they may of caused Obama to loose in Ohio.



So my reasoning goes like this. The msm has egg on their face and they would like to sweep it under the rug as fast as possible. Secondly, the msm wants this race to go on as long as possible. Their ratings go up big time after these elections. Although for different reasons (I am not 100% sure about that one though) than the Republicans, the msm has a vested interest in dragging this out as long as possible.

[papau]

1. because there is no source - could that be the reason? - your source quotes "a source" LOL

[IsItJustMe]

2. Isn't that what they did with their reporting on Obama?

[TwilightGardener]

6. The media ran with the story and dug up a "memo" on Obama even though it

was supposed to be about Hillary. Didn't stop them, or the Hillary campaign, from smearing Obama with something that wasn't true.

[LSparkle]

3. I'm not so concerned about this, but hopefully it puts NAFTA back in Obama's quiver

He should go back to contrasting his support for changing
it (his position HAS been consistent, as it turns out) with
her prior praise of its success. Her finger-wagging "shame
on you" response to the fliers shows that this issue is an
Achilles heel for her -- he should continue to focus on this.

[TwilightGardener]

4. The MSM wants it dropped. They got what they wanted--a smear

on Obama, in the guise of being "fair", as Hillary complained to the refs. Maximum damage inflicted, mission accomplished, horse race goes on and drives up their ratings, story pretty much over now.

[DJ13]

5. The msm has egg on their face and they would like to sweep it under the rug

If they really were concerned about treating both candidates in a fair manner they should approach this story from the aspect that they were mislead by sources with ties to the Clinton campaign.

Anything less tells me they arent sorry they were playing Hillary cheerleaders in the last week leading up to Ohio and Texas.

[bellasgrams]

7. Just face it, he LIED. He's not the Saint you thought he was,

don't blame everyone else for his ineptness. This is small potatoes compared to what he will do if he should win. BO & experience=0.

[MH1]

10. You mean, SHE lied. She isn't the wonderful woman some people seem to think she is.

Don't blame everyone else for her maliciousness. But don't look past the media's complicity whether via willfulness or incompetence.

Hillary + truth = oil and water.

[Capn Sunshine]

8. HRC: win at all costs

if a bald-faced lie gives you the edge, that's OK.

This is where it's hard to maintain a high-road campaign, when there is crap like this being done at every turn. The McWeasel dirty tricksters attracted to Hillary because they want to be "winners" is one of the main reasons I continually harp on Hillary's campaign organization and its shortcomings.

I've been working for Democratic Campaigns since 1964 and I know these sleazebags; now I get lectured by some keyboard commando about how our candidate needs to be "tougher" or some bullshit.

You can be tough and not resort to Republican-style actions to win.

Yes, you CAN.

[ProSense]

9. The MSM is unfair to Hillary is a game. They're gaming the public in the same way they did with Bush

The media organizations aren't fair to Democrats. They spin and distort all Democrats. Look at what happened to Pelosi when she went to Syria (with Republicans). Hillary gets more negative press because she has more out there: from her past (money dealings) to her exposed distortions to Obama winning.

For example, Rudy Giuliani had no business being a leading national candidate. His entire appeal and strength was media hype. Yet if you look at an analysis of media reports, they show more negative stories about Giuliani (when he was in) than even Hillary, given that overall she received more coverage. The reason Giuliani gets more negative press than Hillary is not because the media hates him, it's because he says ridiculous things and is more corrupt. On the positive press, the best example is after Bhutto's assassination. Within 24 hours, at least two media organizations (one was the WSJ) claimed the killing was a positive for Giuliani (a candidate who couldn't even get 6% of his party's vote) on his 9/11 strength (a myth).

Here is why complaining about media unfairness toward Hillary is ludicrous

Then there is the Clintons' buddy Vin Gupta:

Info U.S.A.'s CEO is Vinod Gupta, a close ally of both Clintons. Gupta's empire also includes the Opinion Research Corporation, which conducts the political polling for the television network CNN.

edits in italics.

[1776Forever]

11. Ah yes - Gupta the Clinton's Resko - Only we have hard facts on him - HRC gave her email list to him

Wednesday, February 13, 2008
Hillary Clinton sold her donor lists!

http://richmonddemocrat.blogspot.com/2008/02/hillary-clinton-sold-her-donor-list.html

Let me start this off by saying that no laws were broken. That being said, this just feels wrong:

Reports from Clinton's campaign show that on Dec. 3, it collected payment for renting out three mailing lists, the sale of which netted them $8,225.

It was an unusual transaction, according to Roger Craver, a liberal guru of the political direct-mail industry.

"As a general rule, a campaign will not let its donor list out into the markets until the campaign is over," he said. "This is the mother's milk of small-gift fundraising, and they use these lists frequently."

There are no records that any other presidential candidates rented out mailing lists last year.

Several sources who work in political consulting and in direct mail, who would not speak for attribution, said they were surprised by the deal, as well as its low price.

According to one direct-mail professional, $800,000 would have seemed like a more plausible price for a quality list. A political consultant suggested that the list broker's unidentified client could have rented the list as a sample one — to do a test-run mailing.

Hmmmm, so Hillary Clinton sold her donor lists--which no other candidate did--and she sold them for about 1/100th of what they were worth. Is it possible that Hillary has found a way around the fund raising laws? The person who rented the list is named Vin Gupta. Now let's see, why would someone sell someone something for 1/100th of what it was worth?

Is it possible that the Clintons owe Vin Gupta something?

Gupta spent $900,000 of corporate money flying the Clintons to various destinations. The Clinton campaign said in May that Info U.S.A. had been reimbursed to comply with federal campaigning and ethics rules.

After the Clintons left the White House, Gupta hired Bill Clinton as a consultant. It's one of two continuing business relationships he has had since leaving office, and it has been worth $3.3 million, in addition to the options on 100,000 shares of stock.

When challenged about that outlay of cash to the former president, Gupta has said Clinton is worth $40 million to the company.

Yeah, no conflict of interest here. Nothing to see--move along, move along.

...............

This along with free use of Jet and free trips to Switzerland and Jamaica - Plus a $3 million bonus for Bill - Oh yeah - Resko almost looks tame!

:wow: