I'll post the same question I posed on Max's site.

What if two Jewish candidates were running in a Democratic congressional primary in New York, one a Likud supporter and the other a Meretz supporter, and a financially flush Muslim organization contributed a heavy amount to the left-wing candidate, who went on to win?

You would hear screaming all the way from Brooklyn to Hebron.

" First, no one thinks that Arabs somehow have a disproportionate influence on American politics"

Really? So the USA invaded Iraq and spends hundreds of billion dollars supporting Saudi Arabia at the behest of the Jewish conspiracy.

As a Jew who contributed to Cynthia, it seems to me that Cynthia forgot that constituent services are the bedrock of congressional politics. AIPAC is nowhere near as important as its members or the professional Jew haters think.

As I emphasized, I don't think most foreign policy around the Middle East is derived from Jewish votes or money-- I said specifically that the fixation of the religious right is far more important.

But when a challenger spends twice as much as an incumbent using outside money from one particular ethnic group, it's going to get attention.

Tapped missed the furore about Arab contributions to McKinney's campaign then? How to every rightwing commentator this was once against prove of her wickedness and will to destroy the US?

Excuse me, but "Jewish money" is one of those phrases like "black criminals" that screams out for attention. How much money did Cynthia get from Jewish voters in her district? I bet a bunch over the last couple of campaigns. The old states rights party in Georgia always used to complain about "Jewish money" funding the civil rights movement. I guess that when a dumb cracker complains about "jewish money" paying for "agitators" its not good, but when a "polulist" labor lawyer or Brit "radical" complains about "Jewish money" it's ok.

I think you're all forgetting that perception plays a critical role in politics. Whether or not American Jews did or did not play a crucial role in the Georgia primary is not the most important issue here. The perception that American Jews were responsible for McKinney's defeat is more important, because it reinforces many of the anti-Semitic stereotypes that both blacks and whites have about Jews living in the U.S. and abroad. Judah Ariel has an excellent post on this very topic. Check it out.

The Jewish funding of black politicians and the civil rights movement has always been an issue within the black community; some are grateful for the alliance but some see it as a leash on what they can say, since they are so indebt to those allies because they lack others, especially many with money.

Of course discussing "Jewish money" is explosive, but I didn't bring it up-- it's all over the news. I was pointing out the idiocy of Jews contributing to the stereotype and black resentment by heavily intervening in not one but two major black races.

I generally think the "Jewish lobby" is overrated since without the Christian Right obsession with Israel, Sharon would not have the unwavering backing he gets.

I doubt that the Christian Right has as much to do with support for Sharon as Hamas and Arafat do.

It's absolutely not the responsibility of any community to worry about what might give excuses to their racist enemies. People who hate Jews don't need provocation to hate Jews. Here's a shocking bit of information: "The Jews" divide among ideological, class, and regional lines like most other US ethnicities. Nevertheless, I suspect that most of us appreciate paternalistic advice on how to present ourselves in the same way that African Americans appreciate David Horowitz's advice.

So you're advocating AIPAC boycotting African-American candidates, even when they support AIPAC on the issues that matter to AIPAC, as Majette does. I don't buy it. AIPAC should judge candidates by their issues, not by the color of their skin. The real story is a Jewish organization supporting an African-American candidate, who will do a better job representing African-American interests than her predecessor.

"The real story is a Jewish organization supporting an African-American candidate, who will do a better job representing African-American interests than her predecessor."

'cause those dumb black folks don't do a good job of picking a person on their own, ya know?

Which is how the whole intervention looks like. Here you have a community that doesn't have a lot of money but does have a fair number of votes and Jewish groups intervene with their money to tilt the race.

I'm not a puritan on using money strategically in politics, but there's no question that on principle its anti-democratic. And when that anti-democratic use of money in politics is used by a privileged group like Jews within a money-deprived community like blacks, the resentment is expected and justified.

Two points that haven't been addressed here but which I think will bring some understanding to the debate:

1. McKinney's main no-no to AIPAC was her support of Arab causes. The stupid things she said would not be important except for this fact. Why would McKinney support Arab causes? Because there is a substantial proportion of black voters who are Muslims. Majette will have to deal with those people to. It is not unbelievable that she will eventually turn to support Arab causes as well, if that is what her constituents want.

2. There is certainly a danger in Democrats turning away from the legitimate concerns of black voters. Ask Mark Green, whose failure to hold onto black support turned the NYC mayor over to Republicans again. And don't say Bloomberg is a liberal -- it doesn't matter to all the power and patronage appointees in NYC, they want the jobs.

...I meant "too".

I'll just lift a post from my friend Wyeth Ruthven, who did some mad-libbing to show just how silly this argument is:

TOM EDSALL'S MAD LIBS: I took the liberty of replacing key words and phrases from today's hand-wringing post mortem about the McKinney-Majette race.

"Organized labor and female political leaders voiced concerns yesterday that the defeat of Rep. Lynn Rivers, a critic of pro-labor policies, by a challenger receiving extensive labor support might intensify ill feelings between two important Democratic constituencies. Any increase in tensions between labor and women voters, political activists said, could damage Democratic hopes of taking back the House and keeping control of the Senate.

"Aided by hefty contributions from labor leaders and big vote totals in predominantly union precincts, Rep. John Dingell soundly defeated Rivers in Tuesday's primary in Michigan. Dingell is strongly favored to win the Nov. 5 general election in the solidly Democratic district near Detroit.

"Although both Dingell and Rivers are white, the unusual interest in their primary by pro-labor groups backing Dingell and by pro-choice groups backing Rivers triggered talk yesterday of a potential for sharpened conflicts between labor and women -- in Michigan and elsewhere.That pretty much says it all.

Thank you for the Dingell-Rivers example, which illustrates exactly why the McKinney defeat is so different and galling to blacks. Both labor and pro-choice groups both have significant economic resources at their disposal, so different races when there's a conflict can often go either way-- just look at the Michigan governor's primary where labor-backed Bonior lost to EMILYS list-backed Granholm.

The Madlibs approach is exactly the ahistorical blindness on race that makes media commentary on this issue so ridiculous. There is a real history of black and Jewish relations in the political sphere, some of it very positive, some of it negative, but all too permeated with Jewish money supporting or withholding financial support to blacks in a way that left black groups often feeling less than masters of their own destiny.

And of course Dingell was an incumbent as well as Rivers-- so one had to be defeated, which is a very different issue from the deference to incumbents that usually rules within parties. MadLibs are fun but are usually a history-blind parody of reality, just like the game :)

Nathan, while we are feeling guilty that Jews have contributed money (and bodies) to civil rights, can we share our guilt with Barbadians. I mean, there was that arrogant bastard Harry Belafonte just showing up with suitcases of money in Mississippi as if he had a right, like any other citizen. And what about the Quakers - shouldn't they apologize too? Or is there something specifically tainted about "jewish money"?

As for your even more inane theory that one should have deference to incumbents. Suppose that a miracle happened, and the NAACP put the arm on enough wealthy black Americans to be able to "pump black money" into defeating worthless Democracts. Would that be bad? It's damn overdue in my books. So if someone, anyone, puts some money into defeating Majette in two years, because of her stupid support of repealing the estate tax, I'll applaud it. You can spend time examining the ethnic origin of the donations to see if they meet your standards.

"Guilt"-- who used the word? And this individualistic view of politics-- people have the "right" to contribute where they will is silly when applied to collective organizations like AIPAC and associated groups that directed the money towards the McKinney and Hilliard races. If a few individual Jews had on their own happened to send money down, the issue would be very different. But this was an organized political tactic by organizations and they should take responsibility for the likely responses. When Jews organize in groups to attack black leaders, they should not be surprised if they get attacked as a group for their actions.

As for the invulnerability of incumbenets, of course it would be nice if they were taken out more easily. As I emphasize the issue here is the specific vulnerability of blacks who lack the financial advantages of most white incumbents to protect themselves. Money is what usually protects incumbents and it is what black incumbents lack and these challengers had. If we lived in a world where all challengers had public funding to mount such challenges, there'd be little controversy.

Is it true that black incumbents don't have money? No. Charlie Rangel has lots of money. JC Watts had lots of money. Willie Brown has boatloads of money. Atlanta is has many rich and middle class black people. Why didn't Cynthia develop a money machine that would have made Zell Miller kiss her ass? It could be because she's liberal - and suffers like the very white Paul Wellstone. It could be because she forgot to bring home pork (or some hallal equivalent) and do constituent services. Whatever the real story, it has little to do with the fable of the poor black share-croppers (in metro atlanta!) not getting to re-elect their chosen leader because them Noo York Jews had too much money.

Nathan, I think you hit the spot in your discussion of the media. Why does WBAI in the middle of the dial in New York have 500 listeners and why does a smart, articulate liberal black woman congressman in Atlanta have no politcal machine? Same answer. The right plays politics to win. The left seems to just want reasons to whine.

On this issue the AIPAC defenders sound exactly like the Nader defenders-- the same answer is that people have the "right" to vote for whoever they want, which is of course true and irrelevant to what has been said.

People have trouble analyzing politics and activist responsibility outside that individualistic framework, as if those contributing money or promoting candidacies are not worth analyzing as well as individual voters. The Greens promoted a Nader candidacy that diverted energy and votes from Gore, thereby helping to elect Bush. Green voters had every right to make those votes (just as they can vote for the Green opponent of Wellstone) but those who oppose Bush have every right to resent and attack those progressive Green activists who led to that predictable result. One is responsible for the foreseeable results of ones actions, even when that result is not your intention.

Similarly, when AIPAC intervenes in a race in order to influence the outcome to be different from what would have occurred if they did not spend their money -- which is the reason they spend money remember! -- then their black (and other) opponents have the right to resent the differential result from AIPAC's actions.

The Wellstone point is a good one and proves my point. Even as leftwing a white Democrat as Wellstone does not face well-funded internal opposition in his primaries--- in fact, DLCer Joe Lieberman is out campaigning for him. It is black Dems like Hilliard and McKinney who are not offered loyalty by the top Dem leadership. Whether you think that loyalty within the party to incumbents is a bad thing generally, when it is withheld from black elected Dems, then there is justified resentment.

I'm not defending AIPAC, I gave money to Cynthia, for crying out loud. But what I like about McKinney, that's she's a fearless liberal with a big mouth and no apologies, is not what makes an incumbent bulletproof. Just look at the web sites of the CBC members and you will see the difference between the vast majority who face no real opposition and who have kick ass organizations and constituent services and people like Hilliard and McKinney who tried to coast. John Dingell is black, he was endorsed by the Arab American organizations as a friend and has a link in Arabic on the front page of his website - yet Tipper Gore was out in Detroit cheering Dingell on in his fight against an Emily's list supported INCUMBENT!

If you want to see something pitiful look at
http://www.house.gov/hilliard/constituent_services.htm
Compare to http://www.house.gov/fattah/cs/cs.htm to pick a random example.One's going through the motions and one is making it happen. Which one faced a primary challenge?

Let's get real: McKinney lost for many reasons. According to post election coverage, the primary one was that she did not bring home the pork and make the rotary club circuit like you are required to do if you want to stay in Congress. She also managed to piss off the most powerful democratic politician in her state and don't forget that Majette was Zell Miller's protege. In light of all that, the uproar about "jewish money" is mighty suspicious.

All this talk about Jew Money is just conspiratorial BS used to cover the real reasons McKinney got butt-whipped. Look how soft her support was in her politcal base...the low vote totals she got in her stronghold districts. It seems even her strident supporters lost their enthusiasm.

Somehow McKinney lost touch with the people, so when she suddenly found herself in a tough primary fight, McKinney was too weak to prevail.

The defeat of Cynthia McKinney was not caused by dark, sinister external forces, but rather an inside job. The fault is her own.