Richard Silverstein has attacked Jodi Kantor’s piece on Obama and the Jews in the Times yesterday. Silverstein is a hopeful liberal, and he says that the Jewish vote will go 80 percent for Obama, that the young are ready to throw off their “elitist good old boy” leadership. I’m not so sure. While I know that young Jews are changing the political orientation of my natal community, it’s a slow process and the “schwartzer” crowd (i.e., Jewish racism in the older generation) will be a small factor, as will the Andrew Young factor. Black and Palestinian affinity. Just ask Hillary’s Jewish braintrust, some of whom may migrate to McCain come November, just as Lieberman took the old Jewish vote from Ned Lamont in CT. Silverstein wants to think the best of Jews; I’m not as confident.
Two other attacks on the piece: Dan Swanson points out that the headline in the Times was,”As Obama Heads to Florida, Many of Its Jews Have Doubts,” with strict reference to Israel. He asks, How would readers of the Times feel if the headline said, “As Obama Heads to Minnesota, Many of Its Swedes Have Doubts” re his policy on Sweden. Wouldn’t we find that offensive? And question the Swedish-Americans’ loyalty to the U.S.? Here a dual loyalty is taken for granted.
And my attack: I believe the “Florida Jewish vote” is a stand-in, a synecdoche, a euphemism, for Jewish money. Isn’t that the real issue here? Isn’t that why Hillary threatens to “obliterate” Iran? Where is the journalism about that? Yes, I know: Florida Jewish voters have outsized power, a legitimate story, though Swanson says Florida is not in play this year.
