Updated 2x - Why isn't MSM reporting the truth about NAFTA Clinton Involvement???

I would think that this is huge news - ie Canadian government and CATV publicly apologizing for the Obama NAFTA fabrication AND the fact that Clinton's camp was the first to discuss the NAFTA rhetoric with Canada.  I've been searching through the news channels and online MSM newspapers - and I haven't found a single mention yet.  

Am I taking crazy pills or is MSM and the Clintons burying this story? I would assume that Sen. Clinton essentially lying to the Ohio and Texas electorate would be a somewhat sizable news story, given this week’s results.

What's equally infuriating is the fact that the Clinton camp has brow-beaten the Media into carrying her water and failing to actually "vet" her. My guess is that Olberman will be the only one to mention this story. Sorry to vent, but the only thing that makes my blood boil more than hypocrisy like this is when that hypocrisy is intentionally buried and ignored.  Got Orwell?

Unfortunately, many, many uneducated people will continue to believe that Obama actually had a role in this entire controversy - add that to the whisper campains and numerous other falsehoods.  Oh well, time to get back to comparing Obama to Ken Starr, Karl Rove, Elmer Fudd, or whoever they think of next...

**UPDATE 1:
Here's the Clinton camp's rebuttal - I guess, based on their track record of truth, we should take them on their word (snark):
"Unlike the Obama campaign, we can and do flatly deny this report and urge the Canadian government to reveal the name of anyone they think they heard from. The Obama campaign has given a variety of misleading answers to the press and the public about its top economic adviser’s contacts with the Canadian government and should come clean about why they did so," writes campaign spokespman Phil Singer.

**UPDATE 2:

Thanks to cadjo4 for picking this up -
http://ap.google.com/...

Report Questions Clinton NAFTA Position
By ROB GILLIES – 56 minutes ago

TORONTO (AP) — Prime Minister Stephen Harper's chief of staff said someone in Hillary Rodham Clinton's campaign gave Canada back-channel assurances that her harsh words about the North American Free Trade Agreement were for political show, according to a report by the Canadian Press.

- Also on CNN ticker - buried below a few posts.

•  The reason is OBAMA HAS TO SAY IT.

  If HE says it, it will get reported. That was one of Kerry's big mistakes. HE always waited too long, or let surrpgates do the fighting back. They get no attention. OBAMA has to fire against those Swift boats.

  by LongTom on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 03:12:42 PM PDT

  •  Perhaps, but frame it as an example of

    clumsy if not dangerous foreign policy.Once again bring it back to judgement.as Loeb on Huffpost said

    Suppose someone in the North Korean government released a false story that shifted a key American election. If Bush were negatively affected, we might be bombing Pyongyang by now.

    by ballerina X on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 03:29:36 PM PDT

•  MSNBC first read has it

  link here

  It looks like they're still in the process of chasing down responses and fleshing it out.

  I think it will get some play, but it doesn't have anything to stick to, like the Ohio and texas debates, where it was a big issue.

  I'm not sure how big an issue is in Pennsylvania, plus, that's 7 weeks away.

  Still, it should linger.  I hope.

  by CheckRaise on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 03:12:53 PM PDT

•  media is biased

  They responded fast when it was about obama

  by AHiddenSaint on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 03:13:34 PM PDT

  •  Yes

    They are corporate America's voice and want the less electable Dem to win.

    by DemDachshund on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 03:18:19 PM PDT

    •  If only they were that smart.

      I think they blow with the wind.  And also, they blow.

      by CheckRaise on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 03:20:02 PM PDT

  •  I would have thought for sure CNN would

    have had a segment correcting the false information they so excitedly reported on election eve. The Most Trusted Name in News, The Best Political Team on TV.  Ha!

    by dotster on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 03:26:47 PM PDT

•  Yep. Big story...still waitin' to see ANYthing...

  by la urracca on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 03:14:27 PM PDT

•  Two reasons

  They've moved on and they suck.

  by Paleo on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 03:17:39 PM PDT

•  Because the MSM are owned.

  Did you see the MSNBC clip of Scarborough saying that he hoped the 9/11 conspiracy-theory protester would be locked up in one of our secret prisions? And another pundiet chiming in, "tase him, bro..."

  the MSM are not on the people's side.

  by jvantin1 on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 03:24:29 PM PDT

•  CNN knows nothing of this

  I saw the MSNBC First Read article, which is at least indexed on the politics page, but checked over at CNN just now to find that they still have up their stories from Mon. and Tues. Sick, just sick.

  by tankej on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 03:27:33 PM PDT

  •  CNN knows all about it

    and many of us emailed them all last night.  They are just burying it for the Clintons.

    by MadAsHellMaddie on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 03:38:00 PM PDT

•  Because Obama didn't raise a big stink

  and because it became clear there wasn't much there.  Obama really doesn't want to go near NAFTA in any way.  He avoided going into that territory by ignoring the story.  The whole campaign has moved on from this story.

  by Rolfyboy6 on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 03:30:14 PM PDT

  •  If Obama won't touch it...

    ...his surrogates should definetly bring it up and rub it in Clinton's face.

    by LakeShore on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 03:35:31 PM PDT

    •  We don't know that Obama won't touch it

      there is so much coming out now of the Clintons regarding Rezko and this, that I am sure his advisors are meeting on how to proceed.

      by MadAsHellMaddie on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 03:38:51 PM PDT

      •  This particular incident

        doesn't have a shelf life so they better get on this quick if at all.  It's already yeaterday's news and too complex for the low info voter.

        by Rolfyboy6 on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 03:43:00 PM PDT

•  Two words: Associated Press

  For any international story in the U.S., the Associated Press is the gatekeeper. Fortunately, less than an hour ago, the AP finally wrote a story here:

  http://ap.google.com/...

  Report Questions Clinton NAFTA Position
  By ROB GILLIES – 56 minutes ago

  TORONTO (AP) — Prime Minister Stephen Harper's chief of staff said someone in Hillary Rodham Clinton's campaign gave Canada back-channel assurances that her harsh words about the North American Free Trade Agreement were for political show, according to a report by the Canadian Press.

  You can watch it spilling into local websites here:

  http://news.google.com/...

  by cadejo4 on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 03:30:36 PM PDT

•  BREAKING: MSNBC and Chuck Todd raise issue!

  http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/...

  by MasterSitsu on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 03:31:00 PM PDT

  •  first read

    Is just a blog post and rather slanted at that.  MSNBC doesn't even have it on their front page.

    by Nellcote on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 04:04:48 PM PDT

    •  blog or not its on the front page

      see msnbc.com - link on the front page

      Maddow about to report it on her program as well.

      by MasterSitsu on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 04:09:34 PM PDT

•  Crazy Pills

  Forget oweing Obama a big fat apology (they essentially crucifyed him over a lie last week) - isn't MSM suppossed to chase the best story? What's juicier than reporting how Clinton told a bold faced lie to Ohio and Texas and preceded to canvas the state blasting her hyperbole?

  by LakeShore on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 03:32:04 PM PDT

•  Hmmm....the source hasn't been named...

  ... maybe they want to confirm it rather than speculate.  This whole NAFTA thing has been a debacle.  

  by AnnieM on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 03:35:08 PM PDT

•  I think there needs to more details

  before the MSM really report.

  by Drdemocrat on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 03:35:39 PM PDT

•  Suggest another update, LakeShore

  With the AP story I linked above. This changes things dramatically and the Clinton camp is about to get sucked in tonight and tomorrow.

  by cadejo4 on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 03:39:54 PM PDT

•  So they both did it. We know Goolsbee

  went to the embassy and talked with them. Now Canada says Hillary did too? Name names and then maybe people will believe it.

  by Owllwoman on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 03:40:29 PM PDT

•  Because

  The MSM is protecting Clinton, because they know that Clinton will in turn protect NAFTA.

  The Clintons, after all, were the ones who gave us NAFTA.  Hillary Clinton has even bragged many times about what a great "success" it was.

  Like McCain, we're just supposed to pay attention to what she now says, and not by her many  contradictory deeds and actions.

  by WarIsBankruptcy on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 03:42:58 PM PDT

•  Huffington Post has an article by Paul Loeb

  HuffingtonPost.com

  Did Clinton Win Ohio on a Lie?

  Suppose someone in the North Korean government released a false story that shifted a key American election. If Bush were negatively affected, we might be bombing Pyongyang by now. But this just happened with what Hillary Clinton called "NAFTAgate" Without it, she might never have won Ohio, or her margin would have been minuscule. But as a Canadian Broadcasting Company story reveals, practically the entire story was a lie, one that played so central a role in Clinton's Ohio victory as to thoroughly taint any claim she raises about a swing state mandate.

  ...But "NAFTAgate" was key. Without it her victory would have been non-existent or minimal. The nine delegates Clinton netted from Ohio can't be changed, but the salience of this lie casts into doubt everything she says about the lessons of this victory.

  The article includes a long citation from Matt Wallace's diary on kos

  by Wanda517 on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 03:46:01 PM PDT

•  diplomatic outrage

  Over and aside from Obama getting screwed on this "story", where's the diplomatic outrage that Canada is interfearing in an American election?

  by Nellcote on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 04:07:23 PM PDT

•  the buffoon charles gibson

  had the nerve to ask obama why he could not close the deal in ohio and texas, while knowing full well it was the nafta hit job abc did on obama on election eve that had a lot to do with it. the erroneous nafta story that the duplicitous hilliary exploited.

  by AltruisticSkeptic on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 04:19:02 PM PDT

•  Wow, Phil Singer got his answer

  Right away, didn't he.  I wonder if the room is spinning quickly for him yet.

  Anyways, a lovely idea for a new Obama ad would be to get some Canadian TV footage of the Canadian Prime Minister's chief of staff admitting to the press that he in fact was contacted by the Clinton campaign and was given these exact assurances that Clinton has accused Obama of giving.

  That ad would rank right up there with the 3AM call ad.  It would alert the public to what kind of politician Clinton is and it would sensitize the public to these attack ads on Obama from either Clinton or McCain.

  by BasharH on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 04:21:34 PM PDT

  •  Wonderful Idea ! !

    I hope your suggestion for such and ad is encouraged by folks here and other progressive blogs.  Hopefully, someone with good contacts to the Obama campaign will be contacted.  Thanks for your great idea !

    by jedennis on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 04:41:49 PM PDT

    •  Thanks...

      Gotta hit her back with the truth and with information.  We'll show these fear mongers that there is a way to beat back fear without resorting to mudslinging.

      by BasharH on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 05:55:32 PM PDT

•  Big fat lie by the Clinton campaign.

  Obama already flatly denied the report, so what's the "unlike the Obama campaign" thing?

  by neroden on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 04:34:15 PM PDT

•  Hardball and Tucker

  did not breath a word of this story today. Maybe tomorrow. Today matthews spent most of the hour with a noticeable erection as he obsessed about Pennsylvania politics. Ok, Chris, we know you are from Pa. and your brother is a bigwig with the GOP there...this is going to be sickeningly repetitive as he spends the next 7 weeks talking about the '' real people'' of Pa. Mike Smerconish really gave him a thrill when he said the Rendell was wrong about Swan not winning due to race...'' Swan was just a bad candidate,Chris, your brother should have headed up that ticket'' oh,puke.

  Tucker's narrative is that now delegates do not count...math is boring and the nominee will be the one that can armtwist and cut more deals giving jobs to superdelegates. Screw you,Tucker.

  I can see them trying to develope a new narrative now that Obama's 150-200 elected delegate lead in meaningless. I see Jerome Armstrong pitching in also, saying that Obama has to win Pa. or its over.
  Screw you,Jerome.

  by Hawkjt on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 04:53:41 PM PDT