This article is an impressively lame re-hash of the basic Kool Kid script on McKinney.

While she has plenty of flaws, she is one of the few people inside the Beltway to provide leadership on any issue. The rest of them are still trying to explain how they blundered into bottomless debt, endless war, and granting George Bush imperial powers. But when the dollar drops by half and the American Army mutinies and Iran annexes Iraq, they'll still have Cynthia to sneer at.

One more reason not to subscribe to Salon.

Video Dog posts embarrassing stuff on lots of politicians, mostly Republicans. It's only fair that when an overtly self-serving nut-job like McKinney is such a blatantly lying bitch on camera, that Video Dog should post it, regardless of her party affiliation. It's a good sign that the folks at VD aren't reflexive loyalists. And there's nothing more destructive and, interestingly, boring as a reflexive loyalist.

Well, she had a point there--people seem much more interested in her run-in with a security guard than what we actually pay her to do, which is to make policy.

Even though it's rare to see the woman be reasonable, it's vastly more interesting to see her wild crazy eyes as she claims that the news isn't allowed to broadcast her craziness when she thought no one was listening.

Oh, and for a lovely glimpse into some of her supporters' thinking (hint: they have much in common with Mel Gibson), go here:

http://www.tpmcafe.com/blog/electioncentral/2006/aug/10/ga_04_mckinney_supporters_jews_to_blame_for_her_loss

Kerry Lauerman, VideoDog editor, has outdone Faux News in his omissions and distortions of McKinney's record. His none too subtle, cute commentaries "...hair raising adventures" are disingenuous, weak attempts at humor but obviously designed to hide his misbegotten contempt for McKinney.

In order to justify the allegations in his editorial comments regarding McKinney he provides links. But if the reader takes the time to check the links he will discover that the evidence supports McKinney against the unfounded commentary by Lauerman as well as the selectively edited videos.

Consider Lauerman's charge that McKinney's "exploits" includes "...raising the question of whether President Bush knew that 9/11 was going to happen". When one goes to the link they will discover that every question McKinney raised on this point was not only legitimate but has been proven correct.

For example, the lead paragraph in the linked article states, "Rep. Cynthia McKinney (D-Ga.) is calling for an investigation into whether President Bush and other government officials had advance notice of terrorist attacks on Sept. 11 but did nothing to prevent them. She added that "persons close to this administration are poised to make huge profits off America's new war." Given what we now know about Cheney/Halliburton's no bid contracts, the memo that Bin Laden was determined to attack, Richard Clarke's testimony, recent charges by the 9/11 Commission chairmen about Pentagon lying, it would appear that McKinney was correct if not prescient.

Or the commentary/lie from Lauerman that a Capitol Hill officer was filmed "catching hell" from McKinney for asking for ID. When one views the video link, both McKinney and the officer are smiling and friendly toward each other. Moreover, the so-called video that Lauerman claims exists of McKinney attacking another officer has yet to surface. Furthermore, the charges of racism in the Capitol Hill officer ranks come from many more sources than just McKinney.

Or consider the provided video of Wolf Blitzer's interview with McKinney that Lauerman characterizes as "...an awkward dust up". When one views the video it's obvious that McKinney is taking Blitzer to task for trying to put words in her mouth. She correctly advises that the interview should be rerun in order to hear what she actually said.

Furthermore, to imply that she and/or her staff are anti-Semitic overlooks the fact that AIPAC is on record as working towards her defeat because of her warranted criticism of them and Israel's policies. Also overlooked is the fact that Repubs deliberately skewed the results of her run in the primary by crossing over. There are more distortions and omissions but as Lauerman advises, "...you'll just have to follow the links to read about those."

No doubt McKinney has made mistakes, which don't even come close to the malfeasance and corruption of other members of Congress, but she is the rare Congressperson who has consistently held this administration accountable. If for no other reason she deserves more from Salon than its attempt to assassinate her character and distort her congressional record especially given her courage in speaking truth to power.

As an addendum and before I'm stereotyped, I would like to note that I'm a southern white male and have subscribed to Salon since its beginning and will continue to do so. However, I'm both disappointed as well as puzzled as to why Salon feels the need to go after someone who, from the outset, has fought the fascist regime now controlling our government.

I was all huffy about this ridiculous and lengthy attack of Lauerman's, but Craig Rhodes came to the very articulate rescue. Thank you, southern sir.

Sorry, but kneejerk loyalism to an incompetent representative does not a rescue make.

To suggest that Bush "knew" that 9/11 would happen is to suggest a level of intelligence and analysis beyond anything he's demonstrated so far (and it has as much evidence to support it as young-earth creationist claims). Indeed, Richard Clark has never, ever argued that Bush knew 9/11 would happen, but rather that the Bush administration SHOULD have known something like it would happen. He's described incompetence and a cover-up of that incompetence, not a conspiracy or a hope that an attack would happen. It's disingenuous to suggest otherwise.

McKinney denies saying that racial profiling or racism was behind her confrontation with the police officer. But in speeches made after the incident and earlier in the interview with Blitzer, McKinney clearly states that racial profiling and racism were behind the confrontation. That makes her a liar.

Finally, the bigoted remarks made by her supporters and bodyguards were simply indefensible. I am opposed to our blind support of Israel and the actions of Israel, but to say, "You better get your Jewish ass back..." is no different than saying, "You better move your black ass." It is bigoted. It is racist. It is small-minded.

The defense of McKinney and her supporters is absolutely no different from the right's defense of the Bush administration. It is reflexive,, devoid of objective facts, and fueled by loyalism rather than of a love of truth and/or justice.