Another hit piece on McKinney

"On paper," writes Carbondale City Councilman and Nightlife editor, Chris Wissmann, former U.S. Rep. Cynthia McKinney is

a [L]iberal's dream: the first African-American Congresswoman from Georgia, she has ferociously attacked faulty electronic-voting machines, the Iraq war, federal (non)response to Hurricane Katrina, and the Bush administration in general . . . at a time when many so-called Democrats have rolled over and supported most major Bush administration positions.

But Carbondale's liberal gatekeeper seems to think the dream could be a nightmare when he adds:

McKinney, however, has what Nation columnist Katha Pollitt has called "foot-in-mouth disease." McKinney has entertained, if not exactly endorsed, some batty conspiracy theories about September 11. She's been accused of antisemetism.

Wissmann, however, appears to have "head-up-ass disease." After dangling (and misspelling) antisemetism over Cynthia's head ("she has been accused"), he concedes the "charge probably is a stretch"-- it was McKinney's father eleven years ago (not the Congresswoman in 2007), "who made blatantly antisemetic (sic) remarks."

So why bring it up? And what was the remark? In 1996 Billy McKinney called his daughter's Republican political opponent, John Mitnick, a "racist Jew." I don't know Mitnick, so I don't know if he is racist. But there are a lot of them around, of different religions and ethnicity. But this sounds more anti-Mitnick than anti-Semitic.

Unfortunately, Wissmann's dig at at 9/11 Truth is just as unsubstantiated ("batty conspiracy theories"). No one knows what theories McKinney may have "entertained" (but I hope the missing Pentagon evidence is one of them). In fact, McKinney has merely called for a true and thorough investigation of the events leading up to 9/11, in the spirit of the widows featured in the documentary 9/11 Press for Truth. Does anyone seriously oppose this?

Although, he later exonerates the would-be candidate, Wissmann's smears have Green Party leader Rich Whitney back-pedaling.

"I'm certainly not defending every sentence she's said. . . . Certainly, when you shoot from the hip and speak candidly, you can shoot yourself in the foot, but the vast majority of accusations against her are unfair-- they are distortions of what she said, like the [September 11] things that have gotten her in trouble, and other things have been taken out of context."

Vast majority? Sounds like there are a LOT of accusations against her! Shall I add mine to the list? Her speech at Berkeley on YouTube gets a 'D', since she begins her oft-viewed rant with "Just one question: Who are we? and Who's responsible for what we have become?" That's two questions. Since she's reading from prepared notes, I have but one question: who is responsible for Cynthia's lapse?

Ninety-nine percent of attacks against her, says Whitney, come from a demagogic political right-wing and corporate media threatened by McKinney's brash, frequently combative political positions, and intent on marginalizing her.

The other one-percent must come from liberal media like Wissmann's, although both Alexander Cockburn in Counterpunch and Pollit (in the article referred to by Wissmann) clearly supported McKinney in her run for office in 2002.