Why is Nevada's Jewish community supporting Clinton?

1.

The sample is small, but look at these numbers from Nevada:

5% of the voters were Jewish.

Of these 5%, 67% voted for Hillary Clinton and only 25% for Barack Obama.

In this entrance poll there were 1098 respondents. This means that it had 55 Jewish respondents, 37 or 38 of them voted for Clinton, 13 to 14 voted for Obama, 2 or 3 for John Edwards.

2.

A small sample, but a very large margin, or as one of Hillary Clinton's fanatics wrote to me: "if the sample was too small, they wouldn't report it". The 55 Jewish respondents represent a Jewish community that is growing rapidly. According to a study from last year, in Las Vegas alone there are some 89,000 persons who live in 42,000 Jewish households. Of the 89,000 persons in Jewish households, 67,500 persons (76%) are Jewish.

3.

In the 2004 election cycle Jews were 4% of respondents to the exit polls. 35% of them voted for Bush rather than John Kerry. One possible conclusion: Jews in Nevada are generally more conservative than the national Jewish average (the Jewish national number for Bush was 25%), and that is why they have voted for Clinton rather than Obama.

On the other hand: the conservative Jews could have voted in the Republican caucuses.

Yet again: The conservative are usually the more traditional Jews, and these could not have voted on a Saturday.

4.

The Nevada Jewish establishment - namely, Rep. Shelley Berkley - supported Clinton. But the Jewish political (Democratic) establishment is now very busy as it makes an effort to refute the continuing attacks on the character and the beliefs of Senator Obama.

Following a letter by Jewish organization leaders on the same topic, now seven Jewish senators - all of whom have not endorsed a candidate for the Democratic presidential nomination - sent a letter to the community condemning the anonymous mass emails attacking Obama (Carl Levin, Barbara Boxer, Ben. Cardin, Russ Feingold, Frank Lautenberg, Bernie Sanders, and Ron Wyden): "We find it particularly abhorrent that these attacks arc apparently being sent specifically to the Jewish Community. Jews, who have historically been the target of such attacks, should be the first to reject these tactics", they write.

But make no mistake: The American Jewish establishment feels much more comfortable with a Clinton candidacy than it is with an Obama candidacy (Having said that, it is not just the "Jewish establishment" but the establishment in general).

5.

Just search "Obama" and "Israel" or "Obama" and "Muslim" on Google, and you'll find these attacks on Obama quite easily.

Many are just using what Jewish organization leaders called "falsehood and innuendo", some have more substance, and some contain both. Like this one from the American Thinker blog (that uses, among other things material from The Israel Factor).

I read this post following a conversation with a Democratic operative who complained specifically about it.

Here is the problem I see with it, as with many other such posts:

While it raises some legitimate questions about the candidate?s positions on things related to Israel, it fails to give him any credit for actions and statements that should be considered pro-Israeli.

One example: Obama co-sponsored legislation that will make divesting from Iran easier and safer. Good or bad? According to this blog I read, Obama does not deserve recognition for this move: "I suspect that Obama signed on as a co-sponsor for protective coloration", the author writes.

In short, one gets the feeling that Obama is trapped: if he does wrong, they'll hammer him, if he does right, they'll still hammer him. This is a dangerous approach: It removes from the agenda any political incentive to do right.

Related articles: