Virtually all mainstream media is now owned (and has been for quite a while) by powerful right-wing, wealthy men. The "liberal media" is the biggest myth ever. Even if the little guys in the media-- the reporters and journalists, were to lean toward progressive values, the Fat Cats that own the media corporations ultimately control what gets covered, what doesn't, what gets said, what doesn't, and what sound bites and headlines and images you see everyday that paint your impressions. Think about it.
A handful (Disney, CBS Corporation, News Corporation, TimeWarner, and General Electric) of corporate conglomerates own the majority of mass media outlets now. Such a uniformity of ownership means that stories which might not be to the benefit of these large corporations may not be run.[25] Rupert Murdoch, the CEO of News Corporation (the parent of FOX News), self-identifies as a libertarian, while Richard Parsons, CEO of Time-Warner, identifies as a Republican. Both CEOs' campaign contributions heavily favor Republican candidates[27][28].
We cannot underestimate how powerful that ownership is...the media is almost our only window into what we think is "reality." They know that.
Sources of media not owned by wealthy corporations or influenced by powerful corporate sponsors:
These sources are all imperfect, as humans are, but at least they are more based in democracy.
DEAR OBAMA CAMPAIGN, I KNOW YOU DON'T WANT TO WORK THE EXPERIENCE ANGLE, BUT CAN YOU AT LEAST EDUCATE PEOPLE A LITTLE MORE?
I constantly meet intelligent, educated Democrats who don't even know Obama was in the Illinois Senate for 11 years before the US Senate. This is very relevant experience and our opponents and the media try to hide it. Please bring up his experience as "Constitutional Law professor" more too. We love that! We love our Constitution! Remind us he has a degree from Columbia in International Relations too.
Also, Mrs. Palin in her speech of falsehoods claimed Obama hadn't worked on any significant legislation. Please reeducate us about Obama's work like Ethics Reform and on International Nuclear Security with Dick Lugar, and so on. People are totally being misled on the facts.
EXPERIENCE COMPARISONSAs you can see in the list below, Obama's experience level is similar to other well-known presidents and candidates listed. Obama actually has more Washington and foreign policy experience than Reagan, Bill Clinton, or Lincoln did when they took office. Recall that Bill Clinton did not have Washington and foreign policy experience (he was a governor from Arkansas).
Experience of Various Presidents and Candidates:Total Years in Legislature or High Elected Office Upon Inauguration DateBarack Obama age 47:
Abraham Lincoln age 51:
John F. Kennedy age 43:
Ronald Reagan age 70:
Jimmy Carter age 52:
George W. Bush age 54:
(The list omits experience in lower, unofficial and nongovernmental offices, such as Carter’s extensive service on county boards and commissions, Reagan’s service as President of the Screen Actors Guild, Obama’s experience in community organizing and leadership.)
OBAMA IN THE US SENATE: 4 YEARS
In the 109th Congress, he helped create legislation to control conventional weapons and to promote greater public accountability in the use of federal funds. He also made official trips to Eastern Europe, the Middle East, and Africa. During the 110th Congress, he helped create legislation regarding lobbying and electoral fraud, climate change, nuclear terrorism, and care for returned U.S. military personnel. More details here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barack_obama#Legislation
OBAMA IN THE STATE SENATE: 11 YEARS
Obama gained bipartisan support for legislation reforming ethics and health care laws.[28] He sponsored a law increasing tax credits for low-income workers, negotiated welfare reform, and promoted increased subsidies for childcare.[29] In 2001, as co-chairman of the bipartisan Joint Committee on Administrative Rules, Obama supported Republican Governor Ryan's payday loan regulations and predatory mortgage lending regulations aimed at averting home foreclosures,[30] and in 2003, Obama sponsored and led unanimous, bipartisan passage of legislation to monitor racial profiling by requiring police to record the race of drivers they detained and legislation making Illinois the first state to mandate videotaping of homicide interrogations.[29][31]
The Washington Post finally sheds some light.
Q: Will my taxes go up under the Obama Administration?
A: No, if you and your spouse make less than $600,000 per year, you aren't expected to see taxes go up.
McCain, on the other hand, wants to give big tax breaks to the very wealthy and less of a tax break than Obama's plan to those making under $66K per year.
"Obama and McCain Tax Proposals
According to a new analysis by the Tax Policy Center, a joint project of the Urban Institute and the Brookings Institution, Democrat Barack Obama and Republican John McCain are both proposing tax plans that would result in cuts for most American families.
Obama's plan gives the biggest cuts to those who make the least, while McCain would give the largest cuts to the very wealthy.
For the approximately 147,000 families that make up the top 0.1 percent of the income scale, the difference between the two plans is stark. While McCain offers a $269,364 tax cut, Obama would raise their taxes, on average, by $701,885 - a difference of nearly $1 million."
See the chart here:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/story/2008/06/09/ST2008060900950.html
On the subject of "Why Obama instead of Hillary?" in my previous post with the great video clip from Oregon, I would add the more obvious and related point that unlike Clinton, Obama does not seem to have his ego, his history, and large network of heavy old power connections tied to ideology. He is the unique kind of leader who says, "What are our common goals? Now let's roll up our sleeves and be creative in acheiving them. Let's think outside the box," without regard to the old language and fights about Democrat vs. Republican, Liberal vs. Conservative.
You will see this, for example, if you look at his ideas, plans, and record in his Blueprint for Change at http://www.barackobama.com/issues/.
The old political party dichotomy, which the Clintons have been very much a part of, has delivered us exhausting pettiness (eg, Lewinsky media fest) and "us vs. them" legislative gridlock. Obama transcends dichotomies, as he exemplified when he spoke to us as mature adults in his More Perfect Union speech about race. That's how he is the kind of leader we need right now. I would argue this is the only kind of leader that is going to move us forward as country and begin to solve the messy economic, social, and international problems we have right now.
This recent clip of Barack speaking to an Oregon townhall question contains the best encapsulation I've heard on why we want him instead of Mrs. Clinton.
It's a little slow for the first minute or so as he mentions their similarities, but just wait until he gets warmed up. It really resonatesCheck it out. (You can even skip the first 70 seconds if you are in a hurry.)
http://my.barackobama.com/page/community/post/samgrahamfelsen/gGBn9l
I believe these points are history in the making:
* Making important decisions based on sound info and judgment rather than "political calibrations."
* Obama's understanding that until you create a structure of ethics and transparency in Washington you can only "tinker around the edges" of change, because the old large donor powers with an agenda (lobbyists, PACs) will still have too much influence. Their influence and all the money they spend to influence lawmakers are the reasons we the people do not feel truly represented by our government's choices! Obama has done a lot of work on these issues in State and US Senate, and is doing his best to walk his talk.
Note: Use this link below if the one above doesn't work.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8qUoN-fjvLY
