Democrats woo Jewish, minority vote as primaries heat up

WASHINGTON - In May 1988, an emissary for Democratic presidential candidate Michael Dukakis came to Washington with a letter for the leadership of the American-Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC). "No proposed settlement that is unacceptable to Israel and Jordan will be acceptable to the United States," the letter to the pro-Israel lobby stated.

Dukakis, who pursued the Jewish vote in the race against George H.W. Bush, wanted to assuage concerns regarding his views on the Palestinian question. Not everyone was convinced. During his address before the Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations, on the eve of the primaries, he had failed to calm everyone's nerves. Still, most of the organizations voted for him. His rival in those primaries, Reverend Jesse Jackson, had a clear position: He supported the establishment of a Palestinian state.

Now, nearly all the people running for president support the establishment of a Palestinian state, with the possible exception of Rudy Giuliani. In any case, this is not the main issue facing Jewish voters, who are now being courted in advance of the primaries in key states, where in some cases they constitute as many as 20 percent of the Democratic voters, such as in New York and New Jersey on February 5, "Super Tuesday"; in Florida on January 29; and also in Nevada, where the Jewish population is rising rapidly and where the vote will take place in a week.

The Jews are not the most important minority being wooed by Democratic candidates. They were a lot more important at the stage of fund-raising for campaigns, but in terms of the vote, there are bigger groups now, as in the past. The numbers speak for themselves: 47 percent of the voters in the Democratic primaries in South Carolina in 2004 were African Americans. It was the same in Georgia, and they constituted 23 percent in Tennessee. The percentage of Hispanics voting in the Democratic primaries that year: 23 percent in the very important state of California; 37 percent in New Mexico; 12 percent in Colorado; 11 percent in New York and 17 percent in Arizona.

Hillary Rodham Clinton is now in a race for the Hispanic vote. She is involved in this race, among other reasons, due to the concern that the African Americans' vote will go to her main rival, Barack Obama. Her efforts are not only because his historic candidacy is stirring their imagination, or because his victory in an overwhelmingly white state like Iowa convinced them that the race barrier has been lifted, but because Clinton's campaign has managed to upset some African-American activists, who have objected to statements by her that they considered to be insensitive. Since last Wednesday, the Clinton campaign has been busy fending off accusations of racism - a subject that's particularly sensitive in a South Carolina primary.

Clinton herself released the so-called genie from the bottle when she said that "Dr. [Martin Luther] King's dream began to be realized when President Lyndon Johnson passed the Civil Rights Act of 1964," on the evening of her surprising victory in New Hampshire. She meant that a dream is not enough, that the implementation is just as important - which was a jab at Obama and his dreams. But there were those who read into her statement an attack on the King legacy, that in spite the charisma of a black leader, it takes a white president to make change happen.

Thus, the color of Obama's skin has returned as an issue to the campaign. Those who thought that this was a candidate whose main success was his ability to erase the race question from the political arena, was apparently naive.

The Clintons' energies are focused on Nevada, the next state to hold a vote. One of the interesting questions about the Hispanic voters there is which element will outweigh the other - race or age. Many of the Hispanic voters are very young, and young voters have shown an inclination to vote for Obama. Another challenge for Clinton in Nevada is the caucus system, which is like that in Iowa: The largest union in the state, which represents the tourist industry employees, has announced its support for Obama.

In terms of liberal Jews, Obama has met with success in attracting both more established figures and younger voters. His statement that "it is in the interests of Israel to establish peace in the Middle East," has not only calmed many people's fears on his views of that subject, but has encouraged them to support him.

At the end of last week, one of Obama's foremost Jewish supporters, Lester Crown of Chicago, sent an open letter to Jewish voters. Crown is one of the wealthiest men in America, around fiftieth place on the Forbes magazine list. He is not the only affluent Jew who supports Obama. It turns out that last year, for example, Alan Solomont of Boston, a major contributor to the Jewish community, decided to forsake his long-standing ties with the Clintons to side with Obama.

In any case, it appears that many Jews, liberal and young, have long been convinced that his views on Israel put their minds at ease.

His pledge to push the peace process forward ("It's in Israel's interest," he explained in one speech) certainly has not given them pause. Crown, who has supported Obama for some time, and who has been an Israel supporter for a longer time, promised the readers of his open letter:

"As president, he will be the friend to Israel that we all want to see in the White House - stalwart in his defense of Israel's security, and committed to helping Israel achieve peace with its neighbors."

More surprising, even the hawkish New York Sun published an editorial last week in a similar vein. We are not naive, the editors aver, and we know that promises may differ from policies. Nonetheless, "as a candidate, he has chosen to put himself on the record in terms that Israel's friends in America, at least those not motivated by pure political partisanship, can warmly welcome."