As if the current tempest in a teacup over who played the race card first in the Democratic primary weren’t stupid enough, The Politico ran an article today that sought to characterize the Congressional Black Caucus as fractured over whom to endorse. This is a clear example of the media (not sure Politico qualifies as MSM or not) going to some lengths to create a story ex nihilo.

The headline screeches “Obama Splits Black Caucus.” The lede breathlessly jumps in with:

Even though Barack Obama may become the first African-American ever to represent a major party as the nominee for president, many black lawmakers on Capitol Hill are not supporting him. And that’s creating tensions within the Congressional Black Caucus.

The way Hearn presents the information makes it seem like there’s a big problem here.

The writer, Josephine Hearn, goes on to note:

More than a third of the black members of Congress are backing Hillary Rodham Clinton or John Edwards in the presidential primary, a stance that puts them at odds with many of their African-American constituents, who, recent polls show, are beginning to shift to Obama’s camp.

Sounds pretty fractured, don’t it? Until you read down to the actual numbers:

Of the 42 black members of the House, 17 are behind Obama, 16 are with Clinton, two are with Edwards and seven remain uncommitted.

Ms. Hearn’s math is correct — 16 + 2 = 18, which works out to 42 percent of the Caucus is backing Clinton or Edwards. Heck, in the Pensito Review executive suite, what we call PR math (which we use to count readers) would have changed that to “nearly half of the Caucus.” But the way Hearn presents the information makes it seem like there’s a big problem here, with black congressional members who endorsed Clinton now being criticized by their peers and constituents for not backing Obama.

They are, according to Ms. Hearn, being accused by their black congressmates of backing Clinton because they were not convinced of Obama’s “electability” and then when he won Iowa, did well in New Hampshire and is strong going into South Carolina, they are being made to look like big old Oreos.

Hearn did find at least a couple of Caucus members willing to back her assumption:

“They are all professional politicians, and the first thing professional politicians learn is to try to be where they think it is more politically advantageous to be,” said Rep. Danny K. Davis (D-Ill.), an Obama supporter. “Many people will go with that which is projected, as opposed to going where there is no path and helping to blaze a trail.

“I think there are people rethinking and second-guessing their early endorsement because they simply didn’t know the momentum that would begin to develop [behind Obama].”

Rep. John Lewis (D-Ga.) and Ways and Means Committee Chairman Charles B. Rangel (D-N.Y.) both endorsed Clinton early, citing longtime relationships with the Clintons.

But back to the created controversy. Ms. Hearn wants it to sound like the fate of the free world rests on the fragments of the Congressional Black Caucus, rent asunder by Obama’s ascendancy. Her penultimate paragraph notes:

In congressional elections, the Black Caucus, through its political action committee, has usually united behind African-American candidates in tough-fought races.

But then, in the last paragraph — buried, as it were — she grudgingly includes the fact that her entire premise is meaningless:

A spokeswoman for the Black Caucus, Keiana Barrett, said the group treats the presidential election differently than congressional elections and has traditionally not endorsed until after the nominee has been selected.

So there you have it. Rather than being torn apart, the Caucus is reserving its endorsement until after the nomination, regardless of what its individual members do. At that time it will as one endorse the Democratic candidate, either the black one, the white one or the one who stands or the one who sits to pee.