The fact that you label Obermann as 'progressive' is typical. I don't mean that as an insult, believe me, but it's very indicative of where peoples' heads are at. Olbermann is at best, a mouthpiece for some elements of the Democratic Party (though I'm aware he criticizes them on some issues). Don't get me wrong, he has a few gems. But when he comes out with, say, uninformed and poleimic denunciations of Hugo Chavez - who, in a complete echoing of the other mainstream reporters, he's called a dictator, despite winning 11 out of 12 free and fair votes in 9 years - I have to question his ability to think and the skill and validity of his reporting. He gives the appearance of being 'radical' or 'progressive', but he's far from it. He's certainly not always 'truthful', though this probably stems from ignorance and a knee-jerk ideological bias rather than willful deception (as is the case with most journalists).

Also quite disturbing is the support for Ron Paul, not only on this site, but in internet memes in general. A lot of young people seem to be of the impression that Ron Paul is some kind of leftist 'revolutionary' - you see a lot of this kind of stuff on YouTube, people watching Chomsky videos posting 'RON PAUL 2008'. This is far from the truth. Ron Paul is a closet racist, extremely reactionary, anti-immigrant, nativist far, far, far right politician. Some research on his actual policy and his political past reveals this. Again, part of the reason Ron Paul comes out looking 'progressive' is because of his stance on the Iraq War, which is about the only thing he's good for. Though he's certainly not against in on any kind of moral grounds, he's not against it in principle. The closest candidates to 'progressive' are Kucinich and Gravel.

For a serious democracy to take root in America, corporate power must be distilled. The economy can no longer remain an untouchable domain. It doesn't matter who you vote into office, as long as the same billionaires own the country. This is why Hillary, Obama, and Edwards are so popular - all you have to do is look at their campaign funding and where it comes from. This is an especially important point with regard to the operation of a free media. Can you expect a major corporation to actually report news in a truthful way when it's against its own interests? When it's against the interests of its advertisers? It's not fulfilling its legal obligation to maximize return for the shareholders then, is it? There's a reason why Keith Olbermann is where he is - if he was progressive, then he simply wouldn't be working at MSNBC.

Anyways, GL with this project, hope it turns into something useful ;p. I actually stumbled across this site on my way to www.democracynow.org, which I would advise everyone to check out, if they're interested in some serious independent reporting.

But meh, I'm a Canadian anyways, the hell do I know ;o?