Phil Gramm.

FAIL.

He has nothing to do with this, other than he seems to be a handy scapegoat.

Nothing.

Even if that were not the case, does that mean you no longer support Harry Reid, who voted for Graham's bill, along with all but two other senators?

Are All Anti-Obama Ads Racist?

No not any, but his spiritual mentor for the last 20 years is.

Yes, a very amusing continuation of my theme.

Also

If Raines did advise Obama then the McCain campaign has every right to place Raines and Obama side by side. However, if the connection is a lie, then the ad is racist.

I assume that had the McCain camapaign portrayed Mr Raines in "white face" that would have satisfied all the racially concerned?

cian -- you really need to get back to the "issues." And by the way, have you noticed the number of "white" folks appearing in Obama ads.

So obvious that's his not so subtle way of saying saying, "hey I'm half white too, crackers."

But at least his campaign has ever moved any Muslims out of camera shot. Thank goodness for small mercies!

Phil Gramm.

Here's my thinking on this (I admit, I'm not always logical, but I'm trying to work my way through this using what I have come to know of McCain's campaign and the way they approach politics):

If they really wanted to make the connection between Obama and the present financial crises, then they have it in his connection with Johnson. He headed up his VP pick team until he had to go. They did that. Good ad.

The Raines connection is much more tenuous. So far all they've got is a Washington Post article which says someone on the Obama team contacted him looking for advise. Not great, but hey, the guys black like Obama! Here's an idea- put them together and tag on a worried old lady at the end. Get it?

Are you seriously telling me Rove's guys don't think like this?

Reflect on their 2000 attack on McCain's family and get back to me.

Jack, it's well established science that only between 0.7 and 1.7 black people in an ad is non-racist, while any number of white people greater 2.4 or less than 0.4 will also make an ad racist. The optimal values are 1.2 black people and 1.4 white people (unless there are Mexicans involved). Now since Obama is half black and half white, there were actually 1.5 black people to 1.5 white people in this ad, which while clearly sub-optimal, is still within the non-racist range.

Michael wins the thread, IMO.

If Raines did advise Obama then the McCain campaign has every right to place Raines and Obama side by side. However, if the connection is a lie, then the ad is racist.

Holy crap, that's quite a leap of reasoning.

Shouldn't we instead be focusing on the real issues, namely that John McCain has become aggressively clueness on the financial market issue, while Barack Obama remains cautiously clueless?

Now there's campaign slogans I want to see:
Barack Obama: Cautiously Clueless and John McCain: Aggressively Clueless. Maybe even some bit with Palin saying "When you don't have a clue, you can't blink, because if you blink it's like your eyes close and they open again really fast, and I don't do that when I'm clueless".
Sarah Palin: Unblinkingly Clueless

Oh my. An ad with TWO black men is now considered "racist."

Anyone old enough to remember when TV ads with NO black men, were also considered racist.

Jack, it's well established science that only between 0.7 and 1.7 black people in an ad is non-racist, while any number of white people greater 2.4 or less than 0.4 will also make an ad racist. The optimal values are 1.2 black people and 1.4 white people (unless there are Mexicans involved). Now since Obama is half black and half white, there were actually 1.5 black people to 1.5 white people in this ad, which while clearly sub-optimal, is still within the non-racist range.

I asked an Obama campaign aide last night what he thought. Wouldn't want to go down that road without evidence, he said.

Of course, they don't have to go down that road, with useful idiots like Tumulty to do it form them.

Anyone old enough to remember when TV ads with NO black men, were also considered racist.

Talk about the TV spot calling the cast black. Oooops, guess I'm racist too!!

If getting advice from an official at a troubled financial institution is a sign of bad judgment, then why is that two of McCain's top advisors include John Thain, from Merrill Lynch, and Martin Feldstein, who serves on AIG's board of directors?

And did these falsify records so as to build up their own bonus and fill their own pocket, while causing a $10BUSD scandal?

If not, your comparison falls a mite short.

Beat'cha Alex.

Neener, neener, neener.

Curses! You must have posted that while I was typing!

Anyways, as a general matter, it's silly to cry racism, but worth pointing out that this is a reporter at Time calling racism, not the Obama campaign calling racism.

Lots of people are going to be calling racism, sexism, ageism, POWism, footinmouthism, Christianism, incompetencism, etc. But if it's not actually coming from the campaigns, and it's not really part of the general discussion, is it really worth addressing ALL of them?

Shouldn't we instead be focusing on the real issues, namely that John McCain has become aggressively clueness on the financial market issue, while Barack Obama remains cautiously clueless?

Obama, nor Raines wants to admit, nor deny they had a personal and professional relationship.

Every criticism of BHO is considered racial disparity.

He is now in a downward spiral, despite the efforts to prop him up him up in the MSM.

If getting advice from an official at a troubled financial institution is a sign of bad judgment, then why is that two of McCain's top advisors include John Thain, from Merrill Lynch, and Martin Feldstein, who serves on AIG's board of directors?

Cernig,

I believe that point has already been made except without the specifics.