Today's WaPo has a great article on the campaign we've been running in partnership with more than 20 friends and allies. It does a good job spotting something new going in with this particular effort:

But some longtime Jewish advocates and historians say the campaign is as much about a new generation of activists trying to gain influence and inject their style of social justice work as it is about anything else. The new crop of groups is trying to spread influence through cultural efforts, such as JDub Records and the Jewschool blog, as well as through such traditional grass-roots groups as Jews United for Justice, which focuses on issues such as housing and labor in the D.C. area.

"It's true that established groups haven't spoken with one voice on domestic issues, but they have advocated for those things," said Pamela S. Nadell, professor of history and director of Jewish studies at American University. "What's happening is these new groups -- which are very exciting -- are trying to band together to exercise larger political clout."

I join Professor Nadell in her excitement over the possibilities revealed by this collaboration. There are dozens of independent organizations and blogs that share an upstart mentality, if not necessarily the same policy agendas. I'd be interested to hear your thoughts on this coalition; was it a unique on-shot affair or should it be the beginning of something more? If yes, what?

The article also previews the results of the Jewish agenda campaign, which were first made public in an email to campaign participants on Friday. All things considered, I think the results deserve their own post, which will be forthcoming.

[X-posted with Jspot]

If you could talk to the presidential candidates, what would you tell them?

Seventeen men and one woman are seeking the nomination of their parties for President of the United States. In the coming months, they will develop and present their platforms and priorities.

Many Jewish organizations are taking advantage of this opportunity to present their agenda on behalf of the Jewish community. But is their agenda also your agenda?

As American Jews, we have a broad range of priorities.

Child Care. Civil Rights. Education. Environment. Health Care. Housing. Immigration. Katrina/Rita. Seniors. Wages.

jspot.org, Hazon, Isabella Freedman Retreat Center, Jdub Records, Jewcy.com, Jewish Student Press Service, Jews for Racial & Economic Justice, Jews United for Justice, Jewschool.com, Moishe/Kavod House Boston, Progressive Jewish Alliance, The Shalom Center, The Tribe, VelveteenRabbi.com, and Workmen's Circle/Arbiter Ring want you to be a part of creating a domestic Jewish agenda for the 2008 election that represents your priorities.

The plan is simple. Thousands of Jews come together to create a domestic agenda that represents our interests. We send this agenda to every presidential candidate and request a written response. As candidates reply we publicize their views on our websites, via email, and through the press.

If you want to see a presidential campaign where the candidates address your concerns, you have to tell them what you think.

Interested? Click here to add your vote.

Think it is about time that regular Jews had a chance to shape a Jewish agenda? Think it is about time someone told the presidential candidates that American Jews care deeply about domestic issues? Think it is about time we used the internet to make the Jewish community more representative?

Then help spread the word about this campaign. Email your friends. Place this badge on your website. Write a post for your blog.

Thanks for your support - I'll do my best to post updates daily.

[X-Posted with Jspot]

Many analysts agree that the coherent economic populist message of many congressional candidates is a big factor accounting for the surprise Democratic victory last November. Running on minimum wage, trade, and healthcare many congressional candidates managed to win even in districts that lean Republican.

The recent victory on minimum wage in the House and the Senate is the Democrats' attempt to do good on their campaign promises. A large number of them are will likely sit back and enjoy the luxuries that their new jobs bring. According to some reports, the Democratic honeymoon team spirit is already on the wane.

But economic populists, labor advocates, and allied faith groups are just getting started. While the minimum wage hike was a joyous victory, it was also an overdue one. Rather than taking us forward, it repaired the cracks in our bottom wage that were allowed to widen during the extended reign of the Republican Congress. What is needed now is to really move forward with a bold agenda.

For the forseable future a key component of that agenda is the Employee Free Choice Act. As we have written before, the measures offered in the bill would enable us to rebuild the labor movement on an unprecedented scale by making it easier for unions to organize and putting in place restrictions on employer harassment and intimidation. The Employee Free Choice Act would:

* Allow employees to freely choose whether to form unions by signing cards authorizing representation;

• Provide mediation and arbitration for first-contract disputes; and
  
• Establish stronger penalties for violations of employee rights

As the mid-term election and the minimum wage hike has shown, a stronger union movement is an essential component for a broader progressive alliance and a secure middle class. The campaign for Employee Free Choice is going to be a critical story in the 110th Congress and the Presidential Primaries. The bill is already on the move, as labor and allied groups seek to introduce it shortly in the House. Click here and ask your member of Congress to co-sponsor this important piece of legislation. You'll be participating in progressive history in the making.

[X-posted with Jspot]

Although, so far I've been thoroughly unconvinced by the recent Obamania in the press, finding its star to be long on verbosity and short on content, my interest has been piqued by his article in After Alinsky: Community Organizing in Illinois.

In his article published in 1990 when he was entering Harvard Law, Obama recounts two strands of the post-Civil Rights strategy: political empowerment and economic development programs in blighted communities. He then adds:

In my view, however, neither approach offers lasting hope of real change for the inner city unless undergirded by a systematic approach to community organization. This is because the issues of the inner city are more complex and deeply rooted than ever before. Blatant discrimination has been replaced by institutional racism; problems like teen pregnancy, gang involvement and drug abuse cannot be solved by money alone. At the same time...the inner city's economy and its government support have declined, and middle-class blacks are leaving the neighborhoods they once helped to sustain...Neither electoral politics nor a strategy of economic self-help and internal development can by themselves respond to these new challenges.

In theory, community organizing provides a way to merge various strategies for neighborhood empowerment. Organizing begins with the premise that (1) the problems facing inner-city communities do not result from a lack of effective solutions, but from a lack of power to implement these solutions; (2) that the only way for communities to build long-term power is by organizing people and money around a common vision; and (3) that a viable organization can only be achieved if a broadly based indigenous leadership -- and not one or two charismatic leaders -- can knit together the diverse interests of their local institutions.

This means bringing together churches, block clubs, parent groups and any other institutions in a given community to pay dues, hire organizers, conduct research, develop leadership, hold rallies and education campaigns, and begin drawing up plans on a whole range of issues -- jobs, education, crime, etc. Once such a vehicle is formed, it holds the power to make politicians, agencies and corporations more responsive to community needs. Equally important, it enables people to break their crippling isolation from each other, to reshape their mutual values and expectations and rediscover the possibilities of acting collaboratively -- the prerequisites of any successful self-help initiative.

Obama's emphasis on "empowerment", his strong intellect, and his profound grounding in the organizing school of thought is a welcome break from the career political hacks that he's up against. And yet even this article fails to deliver a bold punch in the way of Alinsky. Ultimately, Obama ends with motherhood and apple pie: "Organizing teaches as nothing else does the beauty and strength of everyday people." Not bad, but where's the beef?

[X-posted with Jspot]

As expected, HRC announced today that she is forming an exploratory committee to, well, "explore" the idea of running for President. To kick off its coverage of the newly declared candidate, the NYTimes looks at the high stakes money race between Clinton and Obama.

Given the number of serious Jewish political donors in the "key cities" (New York, Hollywood, and Chicago) the article is in part a preview of where this elite groups of Jews are putting their treasure. Donors sited in the article include George Soros, Steven Speilberg, Roger Altman, Steven Rattner, Alan Patricof, Jeffrey Katzenberg, Orin S. Kramer, Robert Zimmerman, David Geffen, Robert Wolf, Margo Lion. In fact, almost every single donor mentioned in the article is Jewish, and many (including Kramer, Speilberg, Lion, Geffen, Patricof) are active in the Jewish community.

It's too early to tell much, except that both Clinton and Obama have their fans. As the article notes, they are also not the only game in town. Some New Yorkers are close to former NYC Mayor Rudy Giuliani while John Edwards, a former trial lawyer, is well connected in many of the most politically active law firms. But Edwards, at least, will need a fundraising base similar to Howard Dean's in `03 - which included oodles of small donors.

What the article doesn't investigate is what they are hoping their candidate will actually do, beyond, of course, get elected. It would be good to know, because it represents much of what politicians understand to be the Jewish agenda. Jewish orgs can proclaim a Jewish agenda (shaped increasingly by big dollar donors), but Jewish political contibuters get their say too. And best believe pols are listening.

The rest of us regular Jews can have our say too, but it can be a little more difficult. We have some money, but not big money. We are civicly engaged and politically active citizens, which helps. There are very few of us, but our votes do matter in a few key swing states (Florida, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Nevada). And we can speak from a Jewish place with a moral voice that resonates with others.

If we do all of those things, particularly more of the last, we can strengthen the third Jewish political voice.

[X-posted with Jspot]

We begin with the most interesting - Mitt Romney, the former Republican governor of Massachussets and an avowed Mormon. According to The Phoenix, Romney is actively moving to court the Jewish vote, and more importantly Jewish gelt:

In October, he hired Noam Neusner, former-White House liaison to the Jewish community, as an adviser. And when Romney announced his 10 national finance co-chairs last week, one was former ambassador Mel Sembler -- a mega-fundraiser from Florida and honorary chair of the Republican Jewish Coalition.

As goes the old saying, "Jews earn like Episcopalians and vote like Puerto Ricans" and Republican outreach to Jews will revolve heavily around the Israel issue and outreach to wealthy, conservative Jews. So far, Romney's mitzvah list includes Sam Fox, Lewis Eisenberg, Marc Lipschultz, Fred Zeidman, Sheldon Adelson, Dawn Arnall, Eric Tanenblatt, and Theodore Cutler.

If you have the scoop on Jewish outreach in other presidential campaigns, please let us know.