Of course Raines' race is irrelevant, or should be.

But look at the add and see if you really think that McCain is not making it an issue. Look at the images in the ad:

Barack's black face
Barack's black face + Raines' black face
Raines' black face
Raines' black face
Building
Old white woman
Barack's black face

Do you really think the add would feature Raines' face so prominently if he looked like Phil Gramm?

McCain is attempting to use Raines' race to suggest a closer connection to Raines that there really is, plus generally remind voters of which candidate is the black one.

Posted at September 18, 2008 7:20 PM in response to McCain Ad Hits Obama By Suggesting His Leading Adviser Is (Black) Former Fannie Mae Head

Isn't most of that money already counted?

Congrats to HRC on the successful Elton John fundraiser. But it's being reported like this is new money. Her campaign has been selling tickets to this thing for weeks (tickets went on sale 3/19 http://www.hillaryclinton.com/news/release/view/?id=6565). So isn't it likely that most or at least a large portion of that $2.5 million was collected last month and already included in the undersized $20 million she raised last month?

The real question on fundraising is the trend. We know she was doing really well in early March, repeatedly raising $1 million a day, and we know that she only raised $20 million for the month ("almost all" for the primary, though not "all"). That suggests the pace slowed considerably toward the end of the month. The question, it seems to me, is how much of the $2.5 million EJ fundraiser is new money?

Posted at April 9, 2008 12:43 PM in response to Hillary's Big Fundraiser Tonight Starring Elton John Will Bring In $2.5 Million

I think the more important point in Barack's speech is his exploding of the myth that Hillary Clinton has been fully vetted. It's just not true. He hasn't run a oppo-research based negative ad or made any such attack -- the closest thing he's done is respond aggressively when she has (according to objective observers) distorted his record, and engage in legitimate debate about the merits of health care mandates.

To begin, the GOP will have 20 years of old dirt from Arkansas and the first Clinton presidency to recycle. Most of the public will have long forgotten it, which makes it news. And she was merely a side-figure during Bill's era -- now she will be the target, making HER conduct central. Obama hasn't breathed a word on any of it -- and rightly so. What about those millions of pages of White House documents yet to be released? Are those fully vetted? Hardly.

Plus, we have all of the recent era stuff which is entirely un-mined. How vetted are Bill's shenanigans with his billionaire boys club? His foundation fund raising? The recent NY Times piece on his central Asian adventure in Uranium mining is only the tip of the iceberg. How about Hillary's time in the Senate? It ain't like she was up against a real candidate either time. She is undeniably hated on the right, but that is not the equivalent of saying that all her dirt has been exposed.

It's true that Barack has been less subject to attack then her in the past, and I'm sure that the GOP will find more than Clinton to hit Barack with, but it's simply absurd to assume that they'll have nothing to use against her. The truth is, there's more dirt on her to find given her past, and she is a magnet for their attacks.

Posted at February 6, 2008 1:24 PM in response to Obama: Of Course I Can Handle The GOP. I Took On The Clinton Research Shop!