Writing in Buzzfeed (whatever that is). Rosie Gray says that the three young African-American political figures who oppose President Obama’s emphasis on economic inequality are members of the “Joshua Generation,” by which she means that they are the natural successors to Dr. Martin Luther King, the way Joshua was to Moses.
Not true. The three represent the “AIPAC Generation,” three African-Americans noted for their closeness to the lobby and the Wall Street crowd that runs it.
Unlike the other two, Booker is a true believer, involved with Israel and AIPAC since his early 20′s, in large part due to his close friendship with ultra-Orthodox Rabbi Shmuely Boteach. Boteach is a right-wing Republican who is currently running as such for Congress in New Jersey. Here is a video of the two together at an AIPAC fundraiser. Boteach’s description of Booker’s involvement with Israel is extraordinary.
Here is the story on former Rep. Artur Davis whose candidacy was created by AIPAC and who now is openly opposing Obama’s policies in favor of the interests of the 1%
Davis received substantial funding from the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) and its supporters during his successful 2002 campaign against incumbent Democratic Rep. Earl Hilliard. TheDecatur Daily reported in 2004 that Davis conservatively received $206,595 from individuals and PACs associated with pro-Israel organizations in 2002, more than any other House candidate. This was fairly unusual because Davis was challenging an incumbent from his own party and after he won the primary he had no Republican opponent. Davis’ contributions soared after he attended a series of April 2002 fundraisers coordinated by AIPAC members in Washington, D.C. and New York City. In 2004 AIPAC members sponsored at least one fundraiser for him in New York and another in Birmingham. 
Davis, who received 76 percent of his 2002 contributions from outside Alabama and largely from New York City, acknowledged that he “received a lot of money from the Jewish community,” but made a distinction between taking money from AIPAC – with which he said in 2004 he had no relationship – and its members. “I have never accepted money from AIPAC,” Davis said, “My relationship has been with donors who are members of AIPAC.” 
However, the leaders of AIPAC routinely use other organizations to steer contributions to candidates. Jeffrey Goldberg reported in the New Yorker in 2005 that Mayer Mitchell, a former head of AIPAC, led a 2002 effort to solicit contributions for Davis’ primary campaign to unseat Hilliard, a frequent critic of Israeli policy.  Shortly after the 2002 election, an AIPAC publication reported that “Davis has met with AIPAC activists and staff and has close ties to members of the local and national pro-Israel community.”  Although Davis’s comment is technically correct, i.e., AIPAC doesn’t disburse funds directly to candidates/elected politicians, it directs hundreds of AIPAC-directed PACs to focus funding on key campaigns.
Then there is Harold Ford.
Ford is not a creature of AIPAC but of right-wing Democrats in general. See this story on how he tried to depose Democratic House leader Nancy Pelosi in 2009 for being too liberal. However, his ties to the AIPAC crowd were demonstrated after he lost his bid for a senate seat and chose, as his next career move, the chairmanship of the Democratic Leadership Council — the now defunct group whose raison d’etre can be summed up in the banner: pro-Likud, pro-big business. It’s marquee figure was Joe Lieberman. And its marquee issue was supporting the Iraq war.
The bottom line is that Booker, Davis and Ford are Democrats with an asterisk. And the asterisk is AIPAC. That is why it is those three who are attacking Obama while every member of the House Black Caucus are out there backing Obama with all they have.
So what does their defection mean? Only that these are three ambitious guys who have sized up the political landscape and decided to stick with the guys who brung em to the dance.
Their anti-Obama moves will definitely impress their pals on Wall Street but have quite the opposite effect on the African-American community and the 70-80% of the Jewish community which remains, as always, progressives and not Likudniks,