Former Congresswoman Becomes Darling of the Left

A year ago Cynthia McKinney's political stock hit rock bottom. The five-term Democratic congresswoman from Georgia suffered an embarrassing primary loss — never having recovered from her suggestion that the Bush administration had ignored warnings about the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks.

But since McKinney's August 2002 defeat — which some of her supporters blamed on pro-Israel donors — she has become for many on the far left a political martyr. And she has embraced the role with gusto.

cut


After her defeat, McKinney lashed out at groups ranging from Indian activists, who sparred with her on South Asian issues, and the American Israel Public Affairs Committee to Democratic officials who failed to support her. She ultimately blamed her loss in the open primary on Republican crossover voting, although an analysis by The Atlanta Journal-Constitution later found that only about one-sixth of Majette's victory margin over McKinney was attributable to voters clearly identifiable as Republicans.

cut

Rabbi Michael Lerner, editor of the left-wing Tikkun magazine, publicly backed McKinney during her primary battle, sending an e-mail to members of his Tikkun Community accusing "pro-Sharon forces" of targeting McKinney for her "strong stance in favor of both Israel and Palestine."

Since the election, however, Lerner has soured on McKinney. He said she had failed to disassociate herself from antisemitic remarks by supporters, such as her father's post-primary comments.

"She has not developed a sensitivity to the legitimacy of Israel or to the oppression of the Jewish people throughout history... and I do not think this would be a good thing for the Jewish people or for the left for her to become a major national spokesperson," Lerner said. "She was unfairly scapegoated, but that doesn't mean she has a clean bill of health with regards to Israel and the Jewish people."


http://www.forward.com/issues/2003/03.10.24/news16.mckinney.html

===========================

This woman is a borderline anti-semite. She is a far leftist and an embarassment to the Democratic party. Thankfully, she lost in the primary. She should be quiet and go away.

She should be quiet and go away? Why, because the right wing says so?

Both parties support everything Israel right or wrong. If you dare question that support, then yeah you need to just go away.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

...and shut up and go away! Doesn't sound so logical against someone you support does it? McKinney is a hero, and a very brave one at that!

...are becoming REALLY tiresome. If you insist on interpreting every criticism of Israel as an attack on Jews, you're in for a whopper of a persecution complex. I suggest you get over it, maybe find a new hobby-- something other than constantly whining about how put upon poor little Israel is, or how virtuous her boot heel is....

What has she done that is anti-semitic?

That much alone gets you tossed into the "anti-semitic" bin.

if it bit them on the butt!

which is what I expected.

You have no reply, so you dodged.

sometimes it lurks in women that aren't anti-semetic at all, THAT'S how insidious it is.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

She should be quiet and go away.

you aren't doing the mishpocha any service by radicalizing people. Be gentler than they are, they hate that even more.

Just from watching her for a while, I think pigs will
fly before anybody shuts her up.

I kind of wonder about the anti-semitism charge.
If you are attacked by AIPAC and other Jewish political
organizations, and defeated, and you then say you were beaten
by Jews, is that anti-semitism, or just the truth, and an
acknowledgement of your enemies power? Are only Jews allowed
to say Jews have power?

Is it anti-semitism if you have "not developed a sensitivity to
the legitimacy of Israel or to the oppression of the Jewish people
throughout history", or might that just be, for example, ignorance?

There is a difference between hate and just not giving a shit, and
it seems a distinction worth preserving.

it was her father who said that, and he was fired.

And that statement is excessively inflammatory and indeed borderline anti-semitic.

What does their religion matter?

I agree it was stupid.

But do you want to call it anti-semitic? Who do we say came in
and beat her? If we can say AIPAC came in and beat her, why not
"Jewish political groups"?

The religion matters if it matters to the political group.
Nobody gets upset when Jerry Fallwell is called Christian?

I don't want to spend a lot of time on this, I just think some
lines are being blurred that were better kept clear.

so defining or outlawing hate is a Catch-22 like modern Germany (or our own I/P forum). "Hate crime" is a tautology; we'll never know if someone's motivation was a Jewish dentist or a bad childhood in Long Island. The "sensitivity" routine usually backfire, because they generally publicize the wrong argument, like FOX and Al Franken's book sales.

Inferring intent is indeed a tricky business, that is what got
me started thinking about it. It seemed to me that one could
interpret Ms McKinney's Dad's remarks in a manner that was quite
literal, and arguably correct, and not requiring any prejudice.
Disliking certain Jews who have annoyed you is not the same as
disliking arbitrary Jews you never met because they are Jews.

Of course you always put your foot in it when you call them Jews
instead of something more specific, just as with other groups where
bigotry is an issue.

http://www.commondreams.org/views02/0825-01.htm

Here are two paragraphs from the article, which is not much longer in toto:

"For progressives to instead overstate the role of Jewish campaign contributions serves to re-enforce ugly anti-Semitic stereotypes and exacerbates the divisions between Jews and African-Americans. Once close allies in historic struggles for civil rights, labor and social justice, there has been a growing division between these two communities in recent decades as the increasingly affluent Jewish community has drifted to the right and African-Americans have asserted their support for Third World causes, including the Palestinian struggle for self-determination.

Such divisions between these two historically-oppressed minorities can only help the wealthy white Gentiles who control virtually all the reins of political and economic power in this country. Indeed, pitting Jews and African-Americans against each other is a classic case of divide and rule. Exacerbating these divisions, in fact, may have been part of the Republican strategy all along. Blaming the loss of Cynthia McKinney on Jews or Zionists only benefits those who seek to continue to dominate and oppress."

For progressives to instead overstate the role of Jewish campaign
contributions serves to re-enforce ugly anti-Semitic stereotypes and
exacerbates the divisions between Jews and African-Americans.

Yep.

Once close allies in historic struggles for civil rights, labor
and social justice, there has been a growing division between
these two communities in recent decades as the increasingly affluent
Jewish community has drifted to the right and African-Americans have
asserted their support for Third World causes, including the
Palestinian struggle for self-determination.

Blather. Being friends doesn't mean you agree about everything, and
it doesn't mean you never have "issues". Talking about where Jews
have "drifted" and what African-Americans "support" is blather unless
you have a couple of really well-done before-and-after studies to
back it up.

Such divisions between these two historically-oppressed minorities
can only help the wealthy white Gentiles who control virtually all
the reins of political and economic power in this country.

Yep, although he's a bit out of date with the stuff about who makes
up the ruling class these days.

Indeed, pitting Jews and African-Americans against each other is
a classic case of divide and rule.

Yep.

Exacerbating these divisions, in fact, may have been part of the
Republican strategy all along. Blaming the loss of Cynthia McKinney
on Jews or Zionists only benefits those who seek to continue to
dominate and oppress.

Maybe, I tend to think this sort of conspiracy stuff gives the
Republicans, as a class, way too much credit.

in the Democratic party. McKinney is a shrill noise that hurts the party. There was talk she would run for the Green party. Oh, my.

are the ones ruining the Democratic Party.

Yeah, a giant mistake...

Lieberman and Gore defeated Bush. Would this woman? I think you know the answer.

Since when is defeating someone worth more then principles and progressive ideas? And Bush is still the one in the White House if you failed to remember...

he is the illegitimate fraud of the US, not the president.

I know Darranar. Just pointed out the obvious reality..:kick:

what does it matter to them who has captured the office of the American Presidency? All these politicians unconditionally support Israel's aggression and ethnic cleansing.

of saying America supports little Israel.

of a nation that stands alone. Small and yet powerful, recent yet a leader. Hmmm... interesting. Might be a phenomenon of the new age ...beyond the 2nd world-3rd world; that is, a first world-fourth world dichotomy.

(I expect to get questions about this. If it's too difficult to grasp, think into the 3rd milliennium. A concept that is beyond "progressive" and "liberal".)

:thumbsup:

:eyes:

When the US ceases to exist, maybe I'll believe you.

is small and powerful. A 3rd world nation that reaches super-power proportions in 50 years is alone in that category. I don't mean that it is without allies or friends. Some freinds are fair-weather friends, but there is hope.

Super power indeed...

don't get billions of dollars in military aid and vetos of resolutions whenever they might condemn it!

Israel is an impressive nation; we agree. That doesn't justify its actions, however.

It didn't have to go out of it's way to get into trouble, heh?

I shudder to think the concept of a nation led by people like Sharon being beyond progressive and liberal and everything that's supposed to represent.

is led by the peoples votes. Sharon was the candidate who understood the situation. The people voted for security. In a democracy, the leadership changes as the situation changes. In Israel, that is more rapid than in the USA.

What security? You feel more secure under Sharon? Has the number of suicide attacks gone down since he is in power? Or is it vice versa? The only thing I see Sharon doing is making the whole situation worse with his policy just as Bush is doing around the world. The sooner they go and someone more worthy of the word "statesman" replaces them, the better it will be for all of us around the world..

The suicide attacks were planned and began pre-Sharon. Sharon was elected to protect Israel. Did he make mistakes? Probably. But Israel exists and continues to adapt to the demands of the war that was thrust upon it by the Palestinians.

Read the excellent account of the Camp David negotiations that were off the record (on another thread - I forget which one-). Arafat would not accept the offers he was given. He bears responsibility. The Saudi regime that sent millions of dollars to Hamas, and the Iraqi regime that supported suicide attacks are also to blame.

Updated: Added the paranthetical statement and corrected a typo.

Did you vote for Sharon?

First of all, even if I have had a revulsion for General Sharon that goes back a quarter century, I'm not going to ask you for whom you voted. That's your business.

Arafat was right to reject the "genreous" offer he recieved at Camp David and wrong to leave instead of couteroffer. Sharon may have been put in power to "protect" Israel, but he has done an abysmal job of it.

Gimel: "Sharon was elected to protect Israel."

and - "Sharon was the candidate who understood the situation. The people voted for security."

It doesn't seem to me all that intrusive to ask for a confirmation of the conclusion that I think most people reasonably arrive at upon reading those 2 posts. The problem, of course, is that this is supposed to be a board for "progressives of all stripes" yet we've got blatant Sharon supporters posting away? What is up with that?

How many Bush-voters are tolerated at DU?

And to top all of that, they post from right wing (even as extreme as they come) sources, media people that any real progressive/liberal/left wing person can find only repugnant...

the dead silence now?

is a fool and a war-monger.

He does not understand the situation, and he never will.

you are intitled to it. Yet, I wouldn't give it much weight.

and knowledge to understand that military solutions are rarely the best and often the worst solutions to problems.

He's a fine general, but a pathetic Prime Minister.

you might prefer a military leader, and I disagree, he is highly intelligent. The military option is not his first option, wasn't his first option, and he's used it rather sparingly.

You have to be sitting close to events to see that.

Edit: sorry. An error needed quick repair.

So you basically admire him, and see no problem in him being PM?

aside from "negotiations" that were simply "stop the terror regardless fo whether you can or not so that I can enforce my will on you or I'll enforce my will on you" military solutions are his only solutions.

The situation has gotten so much better since Sharon was elected, hasn't it?

Do you see daily attacks in Israel?

they were under Sharon.

Are you forgetting Feb-March 2002? Apparently so. Well, I shan't forget that. Sharon responded with restraint to the 3x a day bombings. Many heads of state would have responded with a blow to whipe them off the planet (Arafat and the Hamas, IJihad, PFLP, etc.). It's taken time, but today we wee that the regime is about to conclude. Maybe for health reasons, but that's as good as any.

Really, the propaganda has that it's immoral for Israel to kill. Okay, killing is bad. But so is being killed. It is wrong not to defend your country.

was under Sharon.

but there are far fewer now. The Intifada begand, was announced and proclaimed by Arafat before Sharon's election, as you might recall. Sharon was elected in Feb, 2001. The Intifada began in Sept 2000.

especially since the wall and the recent raids have simply added fuel to the fire.

NT!

and the biggest of several mistakes Al Gore made in the
2000 election, even though they won. :puke:

:thumbsup:

:-)

Would Al Gore have done as well with McKinney as his running mate?

We haven't even gotten to the point where white females
are not controversial. It was striking that Mr. Lieberman's
religion was not much of an issue, so I suppose some progress
has been made. Ms McKinney is politically too far to the left
in any case, and she would have been a millstone around Mr. Gore's
neck, just as Mr. Lieberman was from the other direction by
being so unappetizing to the Democratic base. Mr. Lieberman
enjoys publicaly flaunting his religiosity and morality, and
most of the Democratic base is inclined to see these things as
private issues. Mr. Lieberman also makes a great fuss about agreeing
with Republicans, for example the "right to life" issue in Florida
right now, a completely unnecessary act on his part to support
the political opposition. He is politically the kiss of death
every bit as much as Ms McKinney, and she at least has a political
future, he does not.

I commend you.

many leftists and progressives greatly disliked Clinton for the Kosovo campaign, welfare "reform," the war on drugs, and a host of other things.

Quite a few of those disgruntled leftists voted Nader; others didn't vote at all. Gore was seen as a moderate, like Clinton; Lieberman further stregthened that perception. McKinney as Vice Presidential nominee might have brought some would-be Nader voters back without alienating too many centrists.

She seems a bit too left to me for mainstream America
to swallow without choking a bit, not that I don't agree
with her politically for the most part. Nevertheless, I think
that it makes sense for Democratic V.P. candidates to be
perceptably to the left of the Presidential candidate to
increase the appeal of the ticket to the more liberal part
of the party. The people who blame Nadar for the loss should
find this argument meaninful. Mobilizing the base is what it's
all about, and that means having a candidate that they can agree
with.

Back in the old days this sort of "ticket balancing" was common,
often on a geographical basis. Somewhere around the rise of
Raygun it all became about money instead of votes, and that is
a losing game for anyone with traditional Democratic values, so
I think they would have been smarter not to play there.

To the Democratic party.

I guess I would vote for the guy in the general-his positions on domestic issues--for the MOST part--are far better than the Chimp's.

But his moral handwringing about "Hollywood" (which, for critics on the fundie-right, is a code-word for "JEWISH-Hollywood") is nauseating.

And his unflagging support for Bush's criminal and catastrophic war is loathsome.

I hope and pray that he not only loses but is thoroughly repudiated by our party.

No offense intended to you, personally - I support your right to support your candidate - but you do realize Lieberman is about as helpful to the Democratic party as racing stripes are to a Grand Prix racecar heading into the wall engulfed in flames, right?

McKinney asked the tough questions after 911, and she gets branded "a shrill noise", "unAmerican", and "a traitor"...yet Lieberman is DLC (PNAC-lite) and a Bush enabler.

God, I'm sorry to say that about your candidate - I really am - but it has to be said. Lieberman is no Democratic.

that she was defeated by Republican crossover votes. The Democrats rejected her and her radical politics.

vs. all those hordes of white democrats in her district that voted in that primary :eyes:

One day they will realise that she was right. Just as the lone voice against Bush and his war crusades..

fight for civil rights before McKinney was thought of.

and endorsed anti-Palestinian Israeli policies.

Did he condemn the racist marriage law?

that was the extent of Lieberman's involvement.

As with John Kerry, we should judge people for who they are today, not for who they were 20-30 years ago.

no one can criticize him for what he did then.

It is what he is doing NOW that I don't like!!!

NT!

The thing I like most about your posting of articles is the way you seperate the article at the end with ========================== and then give us the appropriate response to the article.

Some people post articles here and in other parts of DU that don't end with ======================= and then tell me what to think so I get confused, but with you it's easy. Sometimes I don't even read the article, I skip right to the ========================== and read what it is that you think I should think.

Overall a terrific job, I may not always agree with you, but I admire the fact that you are always right. :toast:

That's funny Drewb :yourock:

:smoke: :thumbsup:

it is hard to say for sure. If I had to guess, I would say a 3rd son. Anti-semetic, I hope not?

I was too generous.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Apologize.

You're the one who claims Arabs have their own smell.How dare YOU?

and stalk me with old discussions. Enough.

you don't deny it.Some discussions,old or not,are worth pointing out for the hypocrisy value alone.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

And what is the point of all this Herschel. Proving that someone is inferior or what? If not, then why bring up such statements?

Mr. Forkboy misrepresented my comments by extracting a few words. I was demonstating there was a substantial discussion on racial and ethnic body odor in this forum.

Words cannot express my horror at the racism I found there.

go figure :shrug:

-

I now know where you are coming from, and the kind of thoughts that you keep.

Mine get deleted so often I'm thinking of changing my login to "Name removed"...

LOL...

Do YOU control the world Mr. Herschel???

I attempt to adhere to DU rules. Perhaps some have been deleted, but I cannot readily recall them.

I mean, of course, the precious bits about "smelling races."

I have addressed my concerns to the proper channels.

You ask if Mr. Herschel controls the world.

I thought that according to the Protocols of the Elders of Zion that Jews as a group control the world.

Are you thinking perhaps Mr. Herschel is one great big rolled-up ball of Jews?

Oh, wait; maybe it's ZOG that controls the world. So, is Mr. Herschel ZOG?

Perhaps the reason we're in such a hell of a mess is that nobody and certainly no deity in any way controls the world!

And much of what I read here is not only racist but ignorant and disgusting.

I put that below even Hersch standards - he said that?

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Personally, I think Forkboy is a rather fair-minded person.

n/t

Forkboy will start a file on you.

speaks volumes.

it's obvious I'm the type of person who doesn't like racism.

What kind of person are you rini?

You reference the thread you are so bothered about. We can see it was a rational discussion among some. Others reacted irrationally rather than dealing with the issue.

it was a rational discussion among some.

I appreciate your comment.

"Arabs may well be capable of smelling their own."

There are people who DO consider this rational.I will leave it at that.

If posts like the ones i read here can survive on this board (while petty nya-nyas are deleted(, and the person not be banned forever, then I would maintain that something is seriously WRONG here.

:puke:

I did say it was an enlightening read.

I have expressed my opinions to the proper authorities.

I honestly must say that that thread was the worst thing I have ever read on DU.

Unforgivable.

I barely got out alive! Wonder what they'd think of my "injun" heritage? Should I go buy stock in Right Guard?

please define 'far leftist " and how that equates to anti-semitism?..as far as "she should be quiet and go away"..this is becoming a worrying trend throughout all forms of debates..smacks of censorship..

and she is the reason the Dems have become a bunch of cowards. She never said anything antisemitic and I challenge you to produce something she said that was. The next person in a major party who runs for congress on an evenhandedness ticket should be given the full support of peace movement. Until the cowards in congress see that it can pay to support peace they will support war.

...I think in 1996, when she first got elected from Georgia...I was handing out flyers supporting her in Atlanta.

It was important..the whole gay community supported her because her opponent was a homophobe.

Not any more.

We have better alternatives to her in Georgia. She has alienated a vast segment of democrats by uttering foolish and irresponsible statements about 911.

I will not campaign for her again.

What foolish and irresponsible statements? By critisizing the Bush policy and the response?

?

"She has not developed a sensitivity to the legitimacy of Israel or to the oppression of the Jewish people throughout history...

Somehow Israel's ongoing subjugation and oppression of the Palestinian people, have robbed her of any moral claims about "legitimacy" or historical "oppression." It is impossible to have empathy for a nation that is engaged in a criminal enterprise, which is what the occupation of Gaza, the West Bank, and East Jerusalem are.

Israel is no longer, if it ever was, a "light unto the nations." As America has become the greatest threat to the security and peace of the world, Israel has become another brutal Middle Eastern regime.

I hear and I fully understand what Michael Lerner is saying about McKinney, I think it is refreshing to find one candidate, and one political party (the Greens) that will not kow-tow to the likes of AIPAC and their contributors.

We need more radical voices in the public square, even when we disagree with them or find them to be, as Herschel described, "far leftist and an embarassment to the Democratic party."

A toast to all "far leftists" and to all the "embarrassments" to the Democratic Party. At least they didn't vote for PATRIOT Act or for the Iraq War Resolution. We need more of them!

:toast:

Somehow Israel's ongoing subjugation and oppression of the Palestinian people, have robbed her of any moral claims about "legitimacy" or historical "oppression."

I interpret Israel's legitimacy to mean her right to exist as a nation within recognized borders; morevoer, those borders are defined by the 1949 armistice. That is how the following remarks are to be interpreted. If you meant something else, IG, please let me know.

Israel's subjugation and oppression of the Palestinian people does not abrogatge Israel's legitimacy any more than Germany's subjugation and oppression of Jews abrogated her right to exist as a nation. Such behavior may warrent sanctions against Israel or even war crimes indictments against her current political leadership, but in no way warrents revoking Israel's right to exist as a nation.

Also, the oppression of the Jewish people throughout hisotry is an established fact. Nothing will undo that fact, not even the subjugation and oppression of Palestinians by a Jewish state.

We need more radical voices in the public square, even when we disagree with them or find them to be, as Herschel described, "far leftist and an embarassment to the Democratic party."

Indeed, we do need such voices, whether we always agree with them or not. A democratic state can only function by allowing full and open discourse on civic affairs.

Ms. McKinney has been much maligned by her opponents. She has been accused of carping a wild conspiracy theory, when she only raised the question of whether Mr. Bush's campaign contributors are profiting from the so-called war on terror. The fact is that they are and the fact is also that much of Mr. Bush's so-called war on terror, such as the invasion of Iraq, has nothing to do with fighting terror. Whatever price she paid, she was right to raise those questions.

A toast to all "far leftists" and to all the "embarrassments" to the Democratic Party. At least they didn't vote for PATRIOT Act or for the Iraq War Resolution. We need more of them!

I join you in toasting such embarrassments. Someday, those who embraced Bush's so-called war on terror will be themselves be embarrrassed as they are asked why they bought into such an obvious pack of lies.

:toast:

http://www.wsws.org/articles/2003/oct2003/anti-o27.shtml

Tens of thousands of people from throughout the East Coast and as far away as Wisconsin, Maine and Florida demonstrated in Washington, D.C., October 25 to demand an end to the US occupation of Iraq. Students, workers and a sizable contingent of family members of soldiers (See: Families of soldiers condemn Bush's war) deployed in the Iraqi occupation participated in a rally in the shadow of the Washington Monument and a march that wound its way around the White House.

Washington police estimated the crowd at 40,000 to 50,000 people, while organizers claimed that 100,000 participated. In San Francisco, some 15,000 people marched and rallied against the US occupation.

Speakers at the San Francisco demonstration included former Democratic congresswoman Cynthia McKinney, the Green Party’s gubernatorial candidate in the recent California recall election, Peter Camejo, film actor Danny Glover and author Ron Kovic.

I see no compelling evidence she is anti-semitic. But there were some incidents that gave cause for concern. It seems she was slow, or even non-responsive, in addressing these concerns. In my opinion, this allowed those leveling the charge to ruin her re-election hopes. That said, we should never forget her courage in speaking out against the Bush administration in the days following September 11. The Democratic party would have done well to show the same type of courage in opposing Bush, even in the face of his then astonomical approval ratings.

I mean, I have relatives who say stupid things too...when you come under pressure to denounce your dad, i mean that is a tough situation.

I think on balance that Cynthia made some serious mistakes but do not belive that she is an evil or bad person.

Those who would stomp on her political grave and denounce her as a "leftist" at this late date bear the risk of looking like opportunists.

Their apparent political agenda--to push the Democratic Party into closer harmony with the pro-Bush, pro-war, pro-Sharon, pro-fundamentalist right enemies of freedom, America and humanity in general, strikes me as more dangerous than any "leftist" movement of the moment.

As though they would want to push the Democrats further to the right instead of to the left where they should be!

but her father served in an official capacity in at least some of her campaigns, to my recollection. This would make his comments far more damning. I would certainly agree she is not evil, and I do admire her tenacity and many of her progressive views.

It is very tough to rebuke your own dad.

I have some experience with a father who got involved in a controversy.

I stood by him, even though i wasn't sure if he was right.

I was his son.

probably a very good arguement against giving campaign posts to family!

Family is a VERY deep bond....hard to break, and with long term, potentially permanent consequences.