Tell us why you support the president over the Constitution, even though you swore to uphold the latter, not the former. When did our common defense include attacking countries that didn’t threaten us?

You’re not a patriot. You’re not even American, at least not an American our forefathers knew. God save us all from serfs with guns.

The fact that other white men like Baldwin were left out, too, does not diminish the pattern in who gets exposure and who gets ignored. I suppose antiwar.com will also say the fact that over 80-90% of its columnists and regular contributors are male has nothing to do with institutional sexism — because Joe Smoe was omitted, too?

Antiwar.com insidiously implies that there are dozens of anti-war candidates out there we don’t need to grill, and as such, we’re to accept McKinney’s omission was just “random.” She was not singled out to be ignored, she just happened to belong to a group of people not worth attention.

But why does it happen again and again, that truly left candidates who are women or non-white are kept invisible by the media? Why is it that white men are put forth as the main anti-war, anti-corporate figureheads?

It’s not because people like Cynthia McKinney don’t exist, and when they do and get underplayed, that truly indicts the organizations who perpetuate it. This comes at a political cost to progressives: e.g., Hillary Clinton’s campaign showed how gender could be used as a wedge issue to advance a centrist, pro-war agenda. Meanwhile, it’s a shame that candidates like Nader are weak on gender and race — which only exacerbates the identity politics rather than substantive approach to issues of gender and racial justice. Why let Obama or Clinton monopolize what it means to have a black or woman candidate?

When it comes to systemic oppression — the way institutional sexism is reinforced — it doesn’t matter if omitting McKinney was “deliberate” or intentional. I.e., not intentional does not mean not sexist, racist, etc. Instead, the test is whether institutional sexism and racism in progressive organizing shaped why this kind of omission occurred in the first place — and moreover, whether invisibilizing McKinney has helped perpetuate that status quo.

I believe institutional sexism and racism have already had a lot to do with the difficulty McKinney faces in getting recognition both inside and outside the Green Party; in why a big name like Nader would choose not to use his clout to build movement by supporting a candidate like her.

Given this status quo, the real way to avoid perpetuating sexist or racist bias is first to recognize it exists, and then take active steps to reverse it.

A real apology would not focus merely on whether Antiwar.com intended to be racist or sexist. It would acknowledge how sexist and racist biases have been complicit in causing candidates like McKinney to be taken less seriously, and that media have a responsibility to help correct this. Rather than scrapping the candidates page, Antiwar.com should create a new and expanded edition — that recognizes what diverse, female and non-white anti-war candidates can add to the debate, that ultimately acknowledges the importance of a real politics of gender and racial justice (as opposed to a Clinton or Obama politics).

Even if McKinney is decisively anti-war, why shouldn’t she be held to scrutiny, “without fear or favor”? Shouldn’t we still know and consider what her positions are? Isn’t it all the more reason to give her air time if we agree with her stances, since we know the mainstream press will ignore those positions? Is she really that perfect anyway?

A picture of four men sends the message, both obvious and subliminal, that women’s participation doesn’t matter, or doesn’t matter as much. Moreover, this same message is repeated again and again throughout media coverage. It feels like a slap in face.

For more commentary see: http://www.feministpeacenetwork.org/2008/08/17/sexism-in-the-peace-movement-is-alive-and-well-antiwarcom-invisibilizes-presidential-candidate-cynthia-mckinney/

Now Antiwar.com diverts debate to whether the included candidates like Nader, are really pro-war….

So, she’s supports using the military to make the world safe for democracy. Sounds very Wilsonian to me, even a bit Neoconservative.

A vote for McKinney is a vote for the candidate with the absolute best record on human rights and peace. She is serious about turning the Dept of State into the Dept of Peace. By voting for the Greens, you are helping to build the party that will bring sanity and peace to US foreign policy.

Peace!

Second, have you been channeling Tim R.?

Third, since even the man whose boots you assiduously lick, the Bushman himself, said we invaded Iraq under mistaken intel, how does it feel knowing you’re fighting for a mistake? (Of course we know Bush lied us into Iraq, which makes your compliance even worse yet.) Since Iraq didn’t harm us or even intend to harm us, and couldn’t have even if it wanted to, exactly how can you be protecting us against a threat that was never there?

In sum, how does it feel being a horse’s ass manipulated by a warmonger who would smirk behind the scenes after praising your sacrifice in public?