

SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
To donate by check, phone, or other method, see our More Ways to Give page.


Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.

Jen Howard, Free Press, (202) 265-1490 x22 or (703) 517-6273
In the partisan minefield of the closing days of the 2008 campaign,
supporters of both Barack Obama and John McCain gave CBS News anchor
Bob Schieffer a thumbs-up for his moderation of the third and final
presidential debate at Hofstra University on Long Island.
Yet large numbers of those from both sides of the political aisle
felt the moderator could have done more to challenge the candidates'
spin with tougher follow-up questions. The results come from a survey
conducted by Free Press, the national, nonpartisan media reform group,
and devised by Andrew Tyndall, publisher of Tyndall Report.
"Usually, these debates are perceived through such partisan eyes
that no clear consensus emerges," Tyndall observed. "Yet both sides
agreed that Bob Schieffer comes out as the winner of this fall's series
of debates -- and Tom Brokaw is bringing up the rear."
Schieffer Tops Brokaw
Schieffer's questions were graded as "extremely serious and
relevant" by majorities of both groups of supporters from the more than
2,700 volunteers who participated in the Citizens' Media Scorecard,
including 62% of McCain's supporters and 72% of Obama's.
The volunteer panel was asked to pick their favorite moderator and
debate format. A virtually identical majority of both candidates'
supporters picked Schieffer as the best (62% of McCain's; 63% of
Obama's) and almost nobody ranked NBC's Brokaw No. 1 (8% and 6%,
respectively). Jim Lehrer of PBS was ranked better than Brokaw, worse
than Schieffer.
The debate that divided the panel on partisan lines was the
vice-presidential meeting between Joe Biden and Sarah Palin and
moderated by PBS's Gwen Ifill: Only 30% of McCain's supporters rated
Schieffer's debate as superior to Ifill's, whereas 74% of Obama's
supporters preferred Schieffer's.
More Public, Less Spin
Despite their general praise of Schieffer, the debate raters agreed
that he didn't do enough to challenge the candidates' factual
misstatements or spin with tough follow-up questions (64% of McCain's
supporters; 58% of Obama's).
This concern has been consistent in prior debates, with many
reporting that the debate format limited the public's ability to get
engaged in the discussion, while not allowing enough leeway for a
departure from scripted answers.
"I'm not really sure that it is necessary to have an audience at
all, since they weren't allowed to talk and had to remain neutral,"
complained one of the debate watchers. "Why have people there at all?
We only see them as the candidates walk in."
"I would like for the audience to be able to respond by clapping
when they agree with the candidate's position," responded another. "It
makes debates much more lively."
"Questions should be drawn from a pool that are submitted and voted
upon by citizens either online or by other means," another viewer
wrote. "This would achieve a closer approximation to what people really
want to know without filtering."
Several other panelists called for instant fact-checking of answers,
so candidates could not take advantage of the format to spin issues and
avoid real answers. "We should have fact-checkers going during the
debate so we know when one candidate is lying," suggested one rater.
"The average American does not have the time to fact check everything
the senators say."
Why Schieffer?
There may have been clear consensus that Schieffer outperformed the
other moderators, but there was no such agreement between the two
groups about why Schieffer did so well.
Overall, Obama supporters tended to be much more complimentary than
McCain's. More Obama supporters on the panel rated Schieffer's
performance as excellent (57% vs. 33%). They felt he did enough to
fact-check and challenge spin (41% vs. 31%), avoided bias (88% vs.
63%), and was extremely plainspoken (68% vs. 38%), intelligent (58% vs.
28%), and probing (40% vs. 17%).
"McCain supporters preferred Schieffer because he was better than
the other moderators," Tyndall said. "Obama supporters approved of him
because they thought he did an excellent job."
On the Issues
As for Schieffer's selection of topics, majorities of both groups
voted him "just right" on his attention to the social issues of health
care (81%), education (78%), abortion (74%) and energy (72%). Among the
economic topics, he received majority approval from both groups on
federal spending (67%), taxes (65%), housing (59%) and jobs (56%).
McCain supporters were more likely than Obama's to complain about
Schieffer's spending too much time on health care (20% vs.4%) and too
little time on counterterrorism (74% vs. 45%). Obama's supporters
complained about too much time on taxation (26% vs. 11%) -- and too
little time on poverty (83% vs. 43%), Social Security (80% vs. 66%) and
the environment (62% vs. 38%).
Although Free Press extended outreach to all parts of the political
spectrum, Obama supporters considerably outnumbered McCain's, as they
have in our three previous panels. To correct for that imbalance, we
followed our standard practice of contrasting the ratings of the two
groups rather than combining them. Consisting of volunteers rather than
a random sample, these results cannot be projected to the population at
large.
Republicans are from Fox, Democrats from MSNBC
Nowhere was the divide between the two groups of supporters as stark
as in where they chose to watch the debate. Consistently across all
four debates this fall, partisans of McCain/Palin have overwhelmingly
watched the debate on Fox News Channel (49% on Wednesday night).
The top three channels for Obama/Biden backers have been MSNBC
(26%), PBS (20%) and CNN (20%). One thing that both groups of partisans
managed to agree on in this final debate was that -- almost unanimously
-- their candidate won. Each saw the Schieffer debate as an even more
resounding success than the resounding success of previous contests.
For McCain's backers. 91% saw him as the winner (up from 82% for the
town hall, 80% for foreign policy debate). For Obama's backers, those
numbers were 94%, 92% and 89%, respectively.
Andrew Tyndall and Free Press experts are available to comment on
these results. To schedule an appearance, contact Jen Howard at (202)
265-1490 x22 or press@freepress.net.
Free Press was created to give people a voice in the crucial decisions that shape our media. We believe that positive social change, racial justice and meaningful engagement in public life require equitable access to technology, diverse and independent ownership of media platforms, and journalism that holds leaders accountable and tells people what's actually happening in their communities.
(202) 265-1490"This is a major blow for the disastrous, backfiring war and sends a clear signal to President Trump: End the war, do not escalate it," said NIAC. "The hard work of pro-peace Americans is paying off."
After months of failed votes on Democratic war powers resolutions intended to end President Donald Trump's illegal assault on Iran, the US Senate finally advanced legislation to a final vote on Tuesday, when a fourth Republican broke ranks.
Sen. Bill Cassidy (R-La.) joined three other Republicans and all Democrats but one for the 50-47 vote on a motion to discharge Sen. Tim Kaine's (D-Va.) bill from committee. Cassidy's move notably came just days after he lost a primary race in which Trump backed one of his challengers—apparent retribution for the senator voting to convict Trump following his historic second impeachment.
"While I support the administration's efforts to dismantle Iran's nuclear program, the White House and Pentagon have left Congress in the dark on Operation Epic Fury," Cassidy said on social media Tuesday. "In Louisiana, I've heard from people, including President Trump's supporters, who are concerned about this war. Until the administration provides clarity, no congressional authorization or extension can be justified."
The US and Israel launched the operation on February 28, without authorization from Congress and in violation of the United Nations Charter. Faced with a key deadline under the War Powers Act earlier this month, the White House claimed the conflict had been "terminated" due to a ceasefire agreement reached hours after Trump's genocidal threat against Iran on April 7. However, the president has maintained a naval blockade, and Iran has continued to limit ship traffic through the Strait of Hormuz.
As with last week's vote on a war powers resolution from Sen. Jeff Merkley (D-Ore.), Sens. Susan Collins (R-Maine), Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska), and Rand Paul (R-Ky.) backed the new motion, while Sen. John Fetterman (D-Pa.) voted with the GOP. A potential tie was avoided on Tuesday when Sens. John Cornyn (R-Texas), Thom Tillis (R-NC), and Tommy Tuberville (R-Ala.) did not participate.
The Associated Press noted that Kaine's bill "will get a vote on final passage, but the timing was not immediately clear," and if the three Republicans who were absent Tuesday maintain their stances on the war, the resolution could still ultimately be defeated.
Despite that uncertainty, congressional Democrats and other critics of the illegal assault welcomed the Tuesday vote that followed seven unsuccessful votes in the Senate and many more in the House of Representatives, where Republicans also have a narrow majority.
"This is a major blow for the disastrous, backfiring war and sends a clear signal to President Trump: End the war, do not escalate it," the National Iranian American Council (NIAC) declared on social media. "The hard work of pro-peace Americans is paying off."
NIAC president Jamal Abdi said that "it has taken 10 weeks and a dozen votes but Congress is finally coming in line with the vast majority of Americans who oppose the senseless war on Iran... There are strong odds it will pass in the Republican-controlled House later this week."
Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) said in a statement that "vote by vote, Democrats are breaking through Republicans' wall of silence on Trump’s illegal war."
"For more than 80 days, Trump has dragged America into a costly, chaotic conflict with no plan, no objective, and no legal authority," he continued. "Today proved our pressure is working: Republicans are starting to crack, and momentum is building to check him. We are not letting up."
According to The New York Times, Kaine similarly said that "the momentum is moving our way slowly."
While Trump would be able to veto a war powers resolution that reached his desk, Democrats have argued that passing one would make clear to him that his assault on Iran is unpopular. Kaine said that "what the president cares about is his own popularity, and when Congress, even including members of his own party, start to vote against him."
Kaine expects a final vote to come after the Memorial Day recess, and expressed hope that lawmakers returning to their state or districts will hear from frustrated constituents. He predicted that "people are going to hear an earful when they get home about gas prices," which have soared due to the Strait of Hormuz closure.
Alix Fraser, vice president of advocacy at the pro-democracy group Issue One, called Tuesday's vote "a significant step in the effort to reestablish one of Congress' most sacred roles—the constitutional right to send American men and women to war."
Fraser applauded "the senators who voted to reaffirm Congress's constitutional role in decisions of war and peace," recognizing by name the Republicans who had the "for having the courage to stand up for the American service members being asked to risk their lives, as well as for the American families already struggling with rising costs at home."
He also urged the House "to follow suit," emphasizing that "this is a pivotal moment for our democracy. We must decide whether future generations will inherit a system in which the representatives of the American people debate and authorize the most consequential decisions, like going to war—or whether we normalize a system where presidents can unilaterally lead the country into ill-defined and open-ended conflicts."
“Americans should remain concerned about the broader structural weaknesses that allowed the country to reach this point without meaningful congressional involvement from the outset," Fraser added. "The current war powers framework needs to be reformed to empower the legislative branch and follow the constitutional process that the framers intended."
“The governor’s decision leaves the commonwealth exactly where we have been since 2021: with an unchecked illicit market hurting our communities, harming our youth, and putting adults at risk," said one critic.
Criminal justice reform and cannabis legalization advocates led condemnation of Democratic Virginia Gov. Abigail Spanberger's Tuesday veto of legislation that would have established a retail market for the sale of recreational-use marijuana, which has been legal in the state for five years.
In 2021, Virginia became the then-16th state to pass an adult-use marijuana legalization law, with sales set to begin in 2024. However, former Republican Gov. Glenn Youngkin repeatedly vetoed the legislation, which would establish the framework for regulating and taxing the plant's recreational use.
Today, while adults can legally consume cannabis recreationally, cannabis sales in Virginia are still restricted to medical use, and patients must travel to one of the five licensed providers in the commonwealth.
In March, Virginia lawmakers passed a package of bills to legalize recreational cannabis sales to people age 21 and older via a regulated market, place oversight of such sales under the Virginia Cannabis Control Authority, increase the public possession limit from one ounce to 2.5 ounces, allow delivery sales, establish new state and local cannabis taxes, and set January 1, 2027 as the launch date for sales.
Spanberger—who had campaigned on a promise to sign legislation establishing recreational cannabis sales—proposed amendments to the bill that were rejected by the General Assembly.
“I support the intent of many of the bills I am vetoing," she explained in a statement. "However, it is my responsibility as governor to make sure all new laws can be successfully implemented and protect against unintended consequences that harm Virginians."
"I look forward to continuing to work with bill patrons, state and local leaders, and advocates on legislation addressing these issues in the future," the governor said.
Marijuana Moment reported that Spangberger sought to delay the start of sales by six months, increase taxes, and institute new criminal penalties for cannabis consumers.
“Once again, Virginia’s efforts to establish a safe, regulated, and equitable adult-use cannabis marketplace has been halted despite years of work, public input, and broad recognition that the status quo is failing Virginians," state Sen. Lashrecse Aird (D-63), who sponsored one of the bills, said in a statement Tuesday.
“The governor’s decision leaves the commonwealth exactly where we have been since 2021: with an unchecked illicit market hurting our communities, harming our youth, and putting adults at risk," she added.
Del. Paul Krizek (D-16), who sponsored the House of Delegates version of the sales bill, said, “Five years ago, Virginia legalized cannabis in recognition that the War on Drugs has caused disproportionate harm to Black families and communities."
“The question now is whether Virginia will continue allowing an unregulated illegal market to thrive, or finally establish a safe, transparent system that protects consumers, keeps products away from children, and keeps our commitment to ending racially discriminatory marijuana policing in Virginia," he added.
JM Pedini, development director for the advocacy group National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws and executive director for Virginia NORML, told Marijuana Moment that Spanberger's veto is “a profound disappointment to the many Virginia voters who believed her when she said on the campaign trail that she supported establishing a regulated adult-use cannabis market.”
“It is also a slap in the face to the years of serious work undertaken by lawmakers, policy experts, advocates, public health stakeholders, and regulators who spent more than half a decade researching, debating, and carefully crafting this legislation,” Pedini added. “Rather than build upon that work, the governor dismissed it in favor of out-of-touch proposals to recriminalize cannabis consumers that lawmakers rightly rejected.”
It was stupid when Youngkin stood in the way of a regulated market for LEGAL recreational adult-use marijuana--not just for the important safety aspects of taking it off the black market, but also for the $ Virginia misses out on every day without. It is just as stupid now.
— VAPLAN (@vaplan.bsky.social) May 19, 2026 at 2:26 PM
Chelsea Higgs Wise, executive director of the Richmond-based nonprofit Marijuana Justice, said in a statement that "for five years, Virginia has been stuck in a limbo where adults can legally possess, share, and grow cannabis, but there is still no regulated way to purchase it."
"By rejecting the retail bill," Wise added, "the governor has chosen to extend that chaos rather than move us toward a transparent, accountable retail system that centers public health, public safety, and justice."
Twenty-four states have legalized recreational marijuana, while 16 states allow medical use of the plant. Last month, the US Department of Justice began reclassifying cannabis from Schedule I—a category that includes dangerous drugs like heroin, LSD, and MDMA to Schedule III, which includes codeine, ketamine, anabolic steroids, and testosterone.
"Every time Palestinians and their supporters organize internationally, Washington reaches for the terrorism label to shut them down," said one critic.
Palestine defenders decried Tuesday's announcement by the Trump administration of US sanctions targeting four nonviolent campaigners involved in the recent humanitarian flotillas that tried to break Israel's illegal siege of Gaza.
The US Department of the Treasury said in a statement that its Office of Foreign Assets Control "is taking action against four individuals associated with the pro-Hamas flotilla organized by the US-designated Popular Conference for Palestinians Abroad (PCPA) that is attempting to access Gaza in support of Hamas."
The sanctioned individuals are Saif Abu Keshek, a Palestinian with Spanish and Swedish citizenship and PCPA leader who helped organize and lead Global Sumud Flotilla (GSF) missions; Jordan-based PCPA president Hisham Abdallah Sulayman Abu Mahfuz; Mohammed Khatib, who is based in Belgium and is the European coordinator for Samidoun, the Palestinian Prisoner Solidarity Network; and Jaldia Abubakra Aueda, Samidoun's coordinator in Madrid.
“The pro-terror flotilla attempting to reach Gaza is a ludicrous attempt to undermine President [Donald] Trump’s successful progress toward lasting peace in the region," Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent said in a statement Tuesday. “Treasury will continue to sever Hamas’ global financial support networks, no matter where in the world they are.”
There is no substantiated evidence that the Gaza flotillas are linked to Hamas. Meanwhile, United Nations experts, numerous national governments, human rights groups, and experts say Israel is perpetrating genocide, apartheid, colonization, occupation, and ethnic cleansing against Palestinians.
Samidoun called the sanctions—which freeze any of the targets' US assets and ban Americans from doing business with them—“the latest manifestation of the ongoing US genocidal war on the Palestinian people" and pointed to Israel's ongoing violent interception and seizure of GSF vessels on the high seas off the coast of Gaza.
“Today’s sanctions by the US come hand-in-hand with today’s Israeli piracy of the Global Sumud Flotilla and the Freedom Flotilla, and the abduction of hundreds of international activists at sea,” the group said in a statement. “All of these sanctions targeting Palestinian organizations, not only those targeting us, are aiding and abetting genocide."
Since the Hamas-led attack of October 7, 2023, the Biden and Trump administrations have supported Israel with tens of billions of dollars worth of armed aid and diplomatic cover, including vetoes of numerous United Nations Security Council Gaza ceasefire resolutions. Total US financial support for Israel since it was founded in 1948—largely via the ethnic cleansing of Palestinian Arabs—is approaching $300 billion in inflation-adjusted dollars.
Since returning to office, Trump has cracked down on pro-Palestinian activists, students, organizations, and foreign nationals. Critics—including advocacy groups, academics, and some judges—have condemned what they have called attacks on free speech, association, and academic freedom.
The Trump administration has sanctioned International Criminal Court Prosecutor Karim Khan and other numerous other ICC jurists after the Hague-based tribunal issued warrants for the arrest of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and former Defense Minister Yoav Gallant for alleged war crimes and crimes against humanity in Gaza. The ICC also issued arrest warrants for three Hamas leaders who were killed by Israeli attacks.
On Tuesday, far-right Israeli Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich said that the ICC is also seeking his arrest, and that he would "fight back" by ordering the ethnic cleansing of hundreds of Palestinians from their homes in the illegally occupied West Bank.
The US administration has also sanctioned independent UN Palestine expert Francesca Albanese and her family—a move that was temporarily blocked earlier this month by a federal judge who asserted that the Italian humanitarian "has done nothing more than speak."
“Every time Palestinians and their supporters organize internationally, Washington reaches for the terrorism label to shut them down," Isabelle Hayslip, advocacy manager at Democracy for the Arab World Now, told Al Jazeera on Tuesday. "The net keeps widening. Palestinian diaspora communities now live under constant threat of designation for demanding their rights.”