Connect with us
Everlasting Memorials

Features

Is 2020 really the year for America’s first Jewish president?

Bernie Sanders/Michael Bloomberg

As Sanders and Bloomberg surge, here are their paths to victory.
WASHINGTON (JTA) — Bernie Sanders and Mike Bloomberg have much in common besides running for the Democratic nomination for president: They’re in their upper 70s, had hardscrabble upbringings and have had contentious relations with the party whose endorsement they now seek.
And both are seeking the chance to make history as the first-ever Jewish presidential nominee.

 

 

Sanders, the Vermont senator, made a strong bid for the Democratic nomination four years and has sustained his avid supporter base into this campaign. Bloomberg, a billionaire media magnate and former mayor of New York City, is mounting his first drive for national office.
Together they represent the best chance ever for a Jewish American to hold the nation’s highest office. At one point this week FiveThirtyEight, the leading forecaster of presidential politics, gave Sanders a 1 in 2 chance of winning the nomination and Bloomberg a slim chance of his own — meaning that a Jewish candidate was seen as more likely than not to be the ultimate nominee. (The chances have declined since, even though Sanders won the New Hampshire primary on Tuesday, February 11.)

The candidates also reflect a tension within the American Jewish community. While most Jewish Americans are Democrats, some are more progressive inheritors of the left-wing activism that characterized early 20th-century Jewish politics. Others, wary of protecting their assets in uncertain times or deeply attached to Israel and the right-wing politics that have prevailed there for a decade, take a more centrist approach. For them, a candidate like Bloomberg is potentially attractive.
The path between now and November is long and winding, and it’s totally possible that neither Sanders nor Bloomberg will ultimately appear on the ballot. But here’s how they could — and why that matters for U.S. Jews.

Sanders’ path to the nomination is clear, if uncertain
The Sanders equation is widely known: Leverage the campaign’s large, committed volunteer base to get out the vote in every primary. Because the elections are no longer winner-takes-all, Sanders can pick up delegates in every primary — and can chip away toward a plurality by the end of the primary season.
He has his eye on California, where voters tend to be progressive. The Golden State looms large because it has the largest delegate take — 416 of the 3,768 delegates who vote in the first round at the convention — and because this year it moved up its primary from June to Super Tuesday, the March 3 date when 16 nominating contests take place.
Walking away from California with a majority of the delegates would deliver momentum to the candidate.
Sanders has visited the state far more than any other candidate, acording to the Sacramento Bee. And at least until Bloomberg entered the Democratic race in November, he also was spending more money there than any other White House hopeful.
In past years, it was generally clear by early May who the candidate would be for both parties. In 2020, however, with a crowded Democratic field and the end of winner-take-all primaries, the same timeline might not hold true. That means Sanders and his supporters are under pressure to execute a high-level ground game in every state going forward.

Bloomberg’s path would be eased by Sanders’ success
Bloomberg, who is funding his own campaign, also is making a play for California. He has spent $13 million on advertising there and campaigned in the state while the other candidates focused on the early states once considered critical to securing the nomination: Iowa, New Hampshire, South Carolina and Nevada.
Bloomberg is likely pleased to see Sanders take the early lead — the Vermont senator and progressive flag-bearer essentially tied in Iowa with former South Bend, Indiana, Mayor Pete Buttigieg before eking out a victory in New Hampshire. A strong Sanders performance in the early nominating contests will help clear the deck of moderates heading into Super Tuesday, leaving the center lane open to Bloomberg.
The former mayor has campaigned in all the Super Tuesday states and built up his staff in them, as well as in the states that vote on the two subsequent Tuesdays, before investing in other states. That’s a clear indicator of how much he is investing in being a major force by mid-March.
The goal, according to people familiar with Bloomberg’s strategy, is to amass enough delegates throughout the primary season that he becomes the presumptive centrist. If that happens, and Sanders maintains his grip on the left, the Democratic Party will have to reckon with the identity issue that mirrors the divide within American Jewry: Do we swing left or carve out a middle lane? Bloomberg is banking on Americans making the second choice — and picking him to face off against incumbent Donald Trump in November.
“The results from New Hampshire show that Democrats must urgently consolidate around a candidate who can beat Donald Trump, and Mike Bloomberg is best positioned to build the broad coalition necessary to win in November,” a Bloomberg campaign spokesman told the Jewish Telegraphic Agency.

What about a contested convention?
According to FiveThirtyEight, there is currently a 1 in 4 chance that no one candidate will win enough delegates through the primary process to guarantee a choice at the Democratic National Convention in Milwaukee in July.
If it comes down to Bloomberg and Sanders, Bloomberg — or more precisely his money — may have the advantage. The 3,979 pledged delegates will be relieved of their pledges after the first round of voting, and they will be joined by 770 or so “superdelegates,” congressional lawmakers and party officials among them.
That’s a crowd that’s ripe for the enticements that Bloomberg has been known to deliver to constituencies that otherwise might be less than charmed by him. Bloomberg is known for his generosity to the campaigns and causes of potential supporters. He also had a record as mayor of using his own money to mute opposition.
As a presidential candidate, Bloomberg has racked up endorsements from African-American lawmakers and mayors — many of them past beneficiaries of his largesse — as a means of blunting his past embrace of discriminatory “stop and frisk” policing. It seems to have worked (and Bloomberg has also apologized for the practice): A Quinnipiac poll shows Bloomberg making headway among African-Americans.

If not now, then …
Let’s say that by June, Elizabeth Warren, the progressive, is duking it out with Pete Buttigieg, the centrist. Thus no Jewish nominee this year.
But the notion that a Jewish nominee was unelectable (one that Bloomberg once cited to explain why he chose not to run in 2008) has nonetheless been all but erased. Who’s waiting in the wings? Democrats adored Rep. Adam Schiff of California for his role leading the impeachment of Trump, and there was talk on social media of a possible Schiff run for the presidency.
And Trump’s campaign manager, Brad Parscale, has said that the Trumps are set to become a Kennedy-like dynasty.
Say what?
Parscale at California’s Republican Party convention last August.
“I think you see that from Don Jr. I think you see that from Ivanka. You see it from Jared. You see it from all,” he said.
That would be Trump’s Jewish daughter, Ivanka Trump, and her Jewish husband, Jared Kushner.

 

Continue Reading

Features

Rob Reiner asked the big questions. His death leaves us searching for answers.

Can men and women just be friends? Can you be in the revenge business too long? Why don’t you just make 10 louder and have that be the top number on your amp?

All are questions Rob Reiner sought to answer. In the wake of his and his wife’s unexpected deaths, which are being investigated as homicides, it’s hard not to reel with questions of our own: How could someone so beloved come to such a senseless end? How can we account for such a staggering loss to the culture when it came so prematurely? How can we juggle that grief and our horror over the violent murder of Jews at an Australian beach, gathered to celebrate the first night of Hanukkah, and still light candles of our own?

The act of asking may be a way forward, just as Rob Reiner first emerged from sitcom stardom by making inquiries.

In This is Spinal Tap, his first feature, he played the role of Marty DiBergi, the in-universe director of the documentary about the misbegotten 1982 U.S. concert tour of the eponymous metal band. He was, in a sense, culminating the work of his father, Carl Reiner, who launched a classic comedy record as the interviewer of Mel Brooks’ 2,000 Year Old Man. DiBergi as played by Reiner was a reverential interlocutor — one might say a fanboy — but he did take time to query Nigel Tufnell as to why his amp went to 11. And, quoting a bad review, he asked “What day did the Lord create Spinal Tap, and couldn’t he have rested on that day too?”

But Reiner had larger questions to mull over. And in this capacity — not just his iconic scene at Katz’s Deli in When Harry Met Sally or the goblin Yiddishkeit of Miracle Max in The Princess Bride — he was a fundamentally Jewish director.

Stand By Me is a poignant meditation on death through the eyes of childhood — it asks what we remember and how those early experiences shape us. The Princess Bride is a storybook consideration of love — it wonders at the price of seeking or avenging it at all costs. A Few Good Men is a trenchant, cynical-for-Aaron Sorkin, inquest of abuse in the military — how can it happen in an atmosphere of discipline.

In his public life, Reiner was an activist. He asked how he could end cigarette smoking. He asked why gay couples couldn’t marry like straight ones. He asked what Russia may have had on President Trump. This fall, with the FCC’s crackdown on Jimmy Kimmel, he asked if he would soon be censored. He led with the Jewish question of how the world might be repaired.

Guttingly, in perhaps his most personal project, 2015’s Being Charlie, co-written by his son Nick he wondered how a parent can help a child struggling with addiction. (Nick was questioned by the LAPD concerning his parents’ deaths and was placed under arrest.)

Related

None of the questions had pat answers. Taken together, there’s scarcely a part of life that Reiner’s filmography overlooked, including the best way to end it, in 2007’s The Bucket List.

Judging by the longevity of his parents, both of whom lived into their 90s, it’s entirely possible Reiner had much more to ask of the world. That we won’t get to see another film by him, or spot him on the news weighing in on the latest democratic aberration, is hard to swallow.

Yet there is some small comfort in the note Reiner went out on. In October, he unveiled Spinal Tap II: The Beginning of the End, a valedictory moment in a long and celebrated career.

Reiner once again returned to the role of DiBergi. I saw a special prescreening with a live Q&A after the film. It was the day Charlie Kirk was assassinated. I half-expected Reiner to break character and address political violence — his previous film, God & Country, was a documentary on Christian Nationalism.

But Reiner never showed up — only Marty DiBergi, sitting with Nigel Tuffnell (Christopher Guest), David St. Hubbins (Michael McKean) and Derek Smalls (Harry Shearer) at Grauman’s Chinese Theater in Los Angeles. The interview was broadcast to theaters across the country, with viewer-submitted questions like “What, in fact, did the glove from Smell the Glove smell like?” (Minty.) And “Who was the inspiration for ‘Big Bottom?’” (Della Reese.)

Related

DiBergi had one question for the audience: “How did you feel about the film?”

The applause was rapturous, but DiBergi still couldn’t get over Nigel Tuffnell’s Marshall amp, which now stretched beyond 11 and into infinity.

“How can that be?” he asked. “How can you go to infinity? How loud is that?”

There’s no limit, Tuffnell assured him. “Why should there be a limit?”

Reiner, an artist of boundless curiosity and humanity, was limitless. His remit was to reason why. He’ll be impossible to replace, but in asking difficult questions, we can honor him.

The post Rob Reiner asked the big questions. His death leaves us searching for answers. appeared first on The Forward.

Continue Reading

Features

A People and a Pulse: Jewish Voices in Jazz and Modern Music

Author Laurence Seeff/cover of "Jewish Voices in Jazz and Modern Music"

By MARTIN ZEILIG Jazz history is usually told through its most iconic names — Armstrong, Ellington, Parker, Davis — yet running alongside that familiar story is another, often under‑acknowledged one: the deep and enduring contribution of Jewish musicians, bandleaders, composers, and cultural intermediaries.

From the moment jazz emerged at the turn of the 20th century, Jews were not simply observers but active shapers of the music and the industry around it. Their influence — artistic, entrepreneurial, and cultural — has been both significant and, in many respects, disproportionately large. Jews and Jazz (171 pg. $18.75 US) a self‑published work by Laurence Seeff, brings this parallel narrative into sharp, affectionate focus.

Seeff is an ideal guide.

Born in London in 1951, he built a career that moved from statistics to energy policy in Paris, from financial markets at Bloomberg to corporate training in the City of London, all while writing poetry, songs, and humorous verse. Today he lives in Israel, where he continues to write, perform, learn Ivrit, and enjoy life with his large family. Through all these chapters runs a constant passion for jazz — a passion sparked more than fifty‑five years ago when he first heard Terry Lightfoot’s Jazzmen in a Bournemouth pub.

His writing blends clarity, humour, and genuine love for the music and the people who made it.

The musicians he profiles often came from immigrant families who brought with them the musical DNA of Eastern Europe — the cadences of synagogue chant, the urgency of klezmer, the cultural instinct for learning and artistic expression. When these sensibilities met the African American genius of early jazz, the result was a remarkable creative fusion.

Some figures, like Chico Marx, are better known for comedy than musicianship, yet Seeff reminds us that Chico was a serious pianist whose jazz‑inflected playing appeared in every Marx Brothers film and whose orchestra launched young talents like Mel Tormé. Others — Abe Lyman, Lew Stone, and Oscar Rabin — shaped the dance‑band era on both sides of the Atlantic.

Canadian readers will be pleased to find Morris “Moe” Koffman included as well: the Toronto‑born flautist and saxophonist whose “Swinging Shepherd Blues” became an international hit and whose long career at the CBC helped define Canadian jazz.

Seeff also highlights artists whose connection to jazz is more tangential but culturally revealing. Barbra Streisand, for example — a classmate and choir‑mate of Neil Diamond at Erasmus Hall High School — was never a natural jazz singer, yet her versatility allowed her to step into the idiom when she chose.

She opened for Miles Davis at the Village Vanguard in 1961 and, nearly half a century later, returned to the same club to promote Love Is the Answer, her collaboration with jazz pianist Diana Krall. Her contribution to jazz may be limited, but her stature as one of the greatest singers of all time is unquestioned.

Neil Diamond, too, appears in these pages.

Though not a jazz artist, he starred — with gusto, if not great acting finesse — in the 1980 remake of The Jazz Singer, 53 years after Al Jolson’s original. The film was not a success, nor was it truly a jazz picture, but its title and its star’s Jewish identity make it part of the cultural tapestry Seeff explores.

Diamond and Streisand recorded together only once, in 1978, on “You Don’t Bring Me Flowers,” a reminder of the long‑standing artistic ties between them.

Mel Tormé, by contrast, was deeply rooted in jazz. Nicknamed “The Velvet Fog,” he was a prodigy who sang professionally at age four, wrote his first hit at sixteen, drummed for Chico Marx, and recorded with Benny Goodman and Artie Shaw. Ethel Waters once said he was “the only white man who sings with the soul of a black man.” His story exemplifies the porous, collaborative nature of jazz.

Seeff also includes non‑Jewish figures whose lives intersected meaningfully with Jewish culture. Frank Sinatra — perhaps the greatest crooner of them all — was a steadfast supporter of Jewish causes, from protesting during the Holocaust to raising funds for Israel Bonds and the Hebrew University. His multiple visits to Israel, including a major concert in Jerusalem in 1975, underscore the depth of his connection.

Danny Kaye earns his place through his close work with Louis Armstrong, his pitch‑perfect scat singing, and his starring role in The Five Pennies, the biopic of jazz cornetist Red Nichols. Though not a jazz musician per se, his performances radiated a genuine feel for the music.

A later generation is represented by Harry Connick Jr., whose Jewish mother and New Orleans upbringing placed him at the crossroads of cultures. A prodigy who played publicly at age five, he went on to become one of the most successful jazz‑influenced vocalists of his era, with ten number‑one jazz albums.

Even Bob Dylan appears in Seeff’s mosaic — another reminder that Jewish creativity has touched every corner of modern music, sometimes directly through jazz, sometimes through the broader cultural currents that surround it.

Taken together, the concise portraits in Jews and Jazz form a lively, engaging mosaic — a celebration of creativity, resilience, and cross‑cultural exchange. They show how Jewish musicians helped carry jazz from vaudeville and dance halls into swing, bebop, cool jazz, pop, rock, and film music.

They remind us that jazz, at its heart, is a meeting place: a space where people of different backgrounds listen to one another, learn from one another, and create something larger than themselves.

For further information, contact the author at the following email address: laurenceseeff@yahoo.co.uk

Continue Reading

Features

Jews in Strange Places

Abel Meeropol - who wrote the poem "Strange Fruit"/Billie Holiday - who made the song by the same name famous

By DAVID TOPPER The Jewish contribution to 20th century popular music is well known. From Jerome Kern through to Stephen Sondheim, Jews played major roles as both composers and lyricists in the so-called Great American Songbook. (An exception is Cole Porter.) It continued in Musical Theatre throughout the rest of the century.

One very small piece of this story involves what Time magazine in the December 1999 issue called “the tune of the century.” First recorded sixty years before that, it is the powerful and haunting tune called “Strange Fruit,” which is about the lynching of black people in the southern USA. First sung by Billie Holiday in 1939, it became her signature tune.

So, why do I bring this up? Because there is a multi-layered Jewish connection to this song that is worth recalling, which may not be known to many readers.

Let’s start with the lyrics to “Strange Fruit,” which are the essence of this powerful piece:

Southern trees bear strange fruit,Blood on the leaves and blood at the root,Black bodies swinging in the southern breeze,Strange fruit hanging from the poplar trees.Pastoral scene of the gallant south,The bulging eyes and the twisted mouth,Scent of magnolias, sweet and fresh,Then the sudden smell of burning flesh.Here is fruit for the crows to pluck,For the rain to gather, for the wind to suck,For the sun to rot, for the trees to drop,Here is a strange and bitter crop.

Before becoming lyrics in a song, this poem stood alone as a potent statement about the lynchings still taking place throughout the American South at the time. The strong metaphorical imagery never explicitly mentions the lynching, which adds to the poetic power of this poem. Standing alone, I believe it’s an important protest verse from the 20th century.

Searching it on the internet, you may find the author listed as Lewis Allan. But that’s not his real name. “Lewis Allen” is the often-used pen name of Abel Meeropol, a Jewish High School teacher from the Bronx in New York. He and his wife, Anne (nee Shaffer), had two stillborn children with those names – a fact that adds a poignant element to this story.

The origin of the poem for Abel was a photograph he had seen of a lynching of black men in the South. I have seen such images, possibly even the one Abel saw: for example, a sepia photograph of two black men hanging from a long tree limb, and a large crowd of white people below (men, women and even children!), most seeming dressed in their Sunday best (some men with straw hats) looking up and gawking at the sight, some with smiles on their faces – as if attending a festive spectacle. Like Abel, I felt repelled by the picture: it turned my stomach. This communal display of horrific cruelty gave me a glimpse into Abel’s mind, and I understood how it compelled him to write about it. He thus wrote the poem, and it was published in a teacher’s magazine in 1937.

Being a songwriter too, in 1938 Abel added a melody and played it in a New York club he often attended. But here’s where this story’s documentation gets contradictory, depending upon who is recalling the events. The club owner knew Billie Holiday, and he showed the song to her. What her initial response was, we cannot know for sure. But we do know that in a relatively short time, she added it to her repertoire. It eventually became her signature tune. She initially sang it in public, but because of its popularity among her fans, there was pressure to record it too.

There were initial rejections from recording companies because of the controversial content. But Commodore Records took a chance and pressed the first recording in April 1939. This was the same year the movie “Gone with the Wind” came out; it was steeped in racial stereotyping. It was also sixteen years before Rosa Parks refused to give up her seat on a bus in Montgomery, Alabama.

As a record, the song obviously reached a large audience. Since the content was about racism, the song was seen as politically radical; not surprisingly, many radio stations banned it from the airwaves.

Furthermore, it’s also not surprising that Abel, a schoolteacher, was called to appear before a committee of New York lawmakers who were looking for communists in the schools. Possibly they were surprised to find that the poem and the song were written by a white man – and a Jew to boot. In particular, they wanted to know if he was paid by the Communist Party to write this song. He was not. And, in the end, they let him go. But shortly thereafter he quit his teaching job.

This took place in 1941 and was a precursor to the continued American obsession with communism into the 1950s, under Senator Joe McCarthy.

Indeed, that episode had an impact on Abel and Anne too. In 1953 Julius and Ethel Rosenberg were convicted of giving information about nuclear science to the Soviet Union, and they were the first married couple to be executed in the electric chair. They left two sons, Michael (age 10) and Robert (age 6). Apparently, immediate family members were reticent to get involved with the boys, possibly afraid of being accused of sympathizing with communism.

Enter Abel and Anne. Without a moment’s hesitation they stepped in, taking and raising the boys. As Michael and Robert Meeropol they eventually went on to become college professors – and naturally were active in social issues. Anne died in 1973. Abel died in 1986 in a Jewish nursing home in Massachusetts, after a slow decline into dementia. Long before that, Billie Holiday died in 1959, ravaged by the drug addition that took her life at forty-four years of age.

See why I called this a multi-layered Jewish story that’s worth telling?

To hear Billie Holiday singing “Strange Fruit” click here: Strange Fruit

Continue Reading

Copyright © 2017 - 2023 Jewish Post & News