"At least they're being honest about it." - As they have made abundantly plain on multiple occasions (and as discussed elsewhere), the Democratic Party is at its core both racist and elitist. Whether the issue is improved education for underserved students by way of school vouchers, the "soft bigotry" of affirmative action or the reinforcement of race-based stereotypes through its media outlets, the Left has consistently been on the side of that which has been most contrary to the uplift of African Americans. Such remains the case at present - with a major twist.

As noted in The New York Times, a number of Democratic presidential candidates have backed out of a debate to be sponsored by the Congressional Black Caucus (CBC).

Four years ago, the leaders of the Congressional Black Caucus began looking for a television outlet to co-sponsor and broadcast a presidential debate to address the concerns of minority voters. Only one news channel made an acceptable proposal, and an unlikely channel at that: Fox News, in what some Democrats viewed as an effort to associate itself with a group that could help it make good on its claim of presenting "fair and balanced" news coverage.

But now that relationship is being shaken by the decision of Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York, Senator Barack Obama of Illinois, and former Senator John Edwards of North Carolina to shun the debate, a move that has exposed fault lines among two major constituencies of the Democratic Party. While the withdrawal by the candidates frustrated members of the black caucus, it mollified liberals who had objected to the involvement of Fox News, whose programming includes some of the most conservative and pro-Republican commentary on the air.

At present, only a certain blowhard Senator from Delaware has confirmed his attendance at the September debate.

The internet-based revolt against the CBC's sponsorship of this debate has been spearheaded by Color of Change, an outfit that describes itself as "comprised of Black folks from every economic class." Even as Color of Change makes room for "those of every color who seek to help our voices be heard," it appears most evidently to be a front organization for MoveOn.org; its executive director, James Rucker, was MoveOn's Director of Grassroots Mobilization. (This relationship is not unlike that exemplified by white owned companies that use a majority-black subsidiary to apply for municipal contracts that are let under government affirmative action programs.) It is apparent that these "Soros-crats" will not allow a bunch of uppity blacks to be a stumbling block in their path, and that they intend for the CBC to be a subordinate organization.

But the most discomfiting part of this spectacle is what it reveals about the new Democrat Party, in as much as it lays bare what was a heretofore covert effort. These insurgent Democrats clearly wish to further colonize the members of their most loyal constituency, desiring to establish black legislators as titular heads of a puppet regime. But even as liberals decry the infringements on the rights of terrorists occasioned by the Patriot Act and the NSA Wiretapping program, they themselves are taking extraordinary measures to encroach on the CBC's freedom of association - and by extension, the right of any mainstream Democrat to cooperate with anyone not to their liking, no matter the purpose.

To be sure, this Leftist fringe is not interested in bipartisanship to the end of good governance or meaningful legislation. It seeks to achieve its own ends by mandating fealty to a standard of ideological purity entirely of their design, as the Wall Street Journal correctly pointed out in a recent editorial.

The Internet vigilantes would like to drum Fox News out of polite society, but it's clear from the Black Caucus episode that this isn't really about Fox. This is about who runs the Democratic Party. Ever since they came close to nominating Howard Dean for President in 2004, left-wing Web activists have tried to punish any Democrat who dares to step out of line. They tried to run Joe Lieberman out of the Party for his views on Iraq, and they want to banish California Congresswoman Ellen Tauscher because she's voted for free trade agreements.

The pitchfork carriers now want to tell elected Democratic officials which journalists they can appear in public with. Messrs. Edwards and Obama are bowing to those orders because they've decided they can only defeat Hillary Clinton by running to her left. Of course if by some miracle one of them wins the nomination, he'll be known as the candidate from MoveOn.org in the general election too. Republicans will have fun with that one.

To be sure, all of this is of a piece with the "plantation politics" that are a well-established Democrat practice in urban communities of color. As an African American growing up in a racially polarized Chicago (yet and still a capital of the Midwest's Left-leaning "azure empire"), I have become accustomed to dealing with white liberals who thought they knew what was best for blacks. Again, it does not surprise that progressives would abuse and alienate their most loyal supporters, as liberals have always seemed to resent their electoral dependence upon minorities. Thankfully perhaps, they have chosen to express their contempt such that the behavior can receive the harsh scrutiny it deserves.