On CNN this week, a panel discussion about the Democratic Party’s future drifted into uncomfortable territory, raising questions about how party strategists are thinking about Jewish identity, Israel, and the growing influence of the Democratic Socialists of America. The conversation took place Tuesday on “The Story Is with Elex Michaelson,” where panelists discussed who might […]

On CNN this week, a panel discussion about the Democratic Party’s future drifted into uncomfortable territory, raising questions about how party strategists are thinking about Jewish identity, Israel, and the growing influence of the Democratic Socialists of America.

The conversation took place Tuesday on “The Story Is with Elex Michaelson,” where panelists discussed who might emerge as the Democratic nominee in 2028. The topic came up in the wake of several primary victories by DSA-backed candidates, many of whom have been sharply critical of Israel and have drawn scrutiny from Jewish voters and pro-Israel Democrats.

Host Elex Michaelson acknowledged that some elements on the party’s far left have moved close to anti-Semitism, if not crossed into it. He called the development “a little scary,” which is putting it mildly. The Democratic Party is increasingly being pulled between its establishment wing and an activist base that often treats support for Israel as a political liability.

The discussion eventually turned to Sen. Jon Ossoff of Georgia, who is Jewish and is expected to face a difficult re-election campaign. Some commentators argued that if Ossoff survives a heavily targeted Republican challenge, he could become a serious contender for the 2028 Democratic nomination.

Political commentator Eric Messersmith suggested Ossoff could occupy a unique lane in the party because he is Jewish but also critical of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and the Israeli government. In his view, that might allow Ossoff to appeal to both Jewish voters and progressives skeptical of Israel.

Then Michaelson made the comment that drew the most backlash. Referring to Jewish identity, he said, “some people read a little more Jewish than other people,” adding that Ossoff may not “read as Jewish” as Pennsylvania Gov. Josh Shapiro.

The remark was quickly criticized, and understandably so. Talking about whether one Jewish politician “reads” as more Jewish than another is not just awkward phrasing. It suggests that ethnic and religious identity is being weighed as a political branding problem. That is a troubling way to discuss candidates in a major American political party.

Advertisement

Michaelson later apologized, saying the comment was offensive. The apology was necessary, but the episode still revealed something important about the current Democratic debate. Shapiro, who was seriously considered as Kamala Harris’ running mate in 2024, has long been viewed as one of the party’s more accomplished figures. Yet his Jewish identity and past comments about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict became a major point of contention among progressives.

At the same time, more openly radical figures on the left have faced fewer consequences for rhetoric that many Jewish voters view as hostile or threatening. Zohran Mamdani’s refusal to distance himself from slogans like “globalize the intifada” did not stop his rise. Other DSA-aligned candidates have also advanced despite controversies involving Israel, Zionism, and Jewish concerns about anti-Semitism.

The issue is not that every Democrat shares those views. Most do not. The issue is that a vocal activist wing has gained enough influence to make Jewish identity itself feel like a campaign calculation. When national pundits are discussing which Jewish candidate “reads” as more acceptable to the party’s base, something has gone badly wrong.

A healthy political party should be able to debate Israel, Gaza, foreign policy, and human rights without reducing Jewish candidates to how their identity might play with anti-Israel activists. If Democrats cannot draw that line clearly, they will keep sending the message that one kind of prejudice is easier to excuse than others.

The Western Journal