Let's stop and consider for a minute. After Booker made his remarks on "Meet the Press," prominent Democrats including former Democratic Pennsylvania Gov. Ed Rendell, Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., and Sen. Chris Coons, D-Del., all backed him up. But they didn't receive anywhere near the same kind of scrutiny Booker did. Why? The obvious answer is that they are all white, while Booker is black. It is one thing for a white Democrat to disagree with Obama on anything; for a black American to disagree with President Obama is akin to treason.
That perverse political truism explains President Obama's embrace of same-sex marriage. The National Association for the Advancement of Colored People came out this week in support of same-sex marriage, even calling it a civil rights issue -- even though just 39 percent of black Americans support same-sex marriage. Why have major institutional black organizations come out in support of President Obama's policy? Because they feel that racial loyalty will overcome ideological diversity.
Even worse, while groups like the NAACP demand ideological conformity from black Americans, so do white liberals such as Chris Matthews, who said that Booker had engaged in an "act of sabotage," a "betrayal." The truth is that during the "Meet the Press" interview, Booker gushed over Obama's economic policy and endorsed him multiple times. So that simply wasn't true. But straying from the Obama path is verboten, even for black liberals.
Booker's race shouldn't be important to this story. There's only one reason it is: Liberals want to use race as a litmus test for ideology. And that is deeply bigoted.
Fast and Furious: Family of Slain Border Patrol Agent "Baffled" Obama's Executive Privilege Used to Protect Holder's Wife | Katie Pavlich