The organized crime bit about Jim Hensley is true to some extent, but wildly overblown. Nice tidbit, but I would not hang my hat on it.

"With all due respect, John, there is only one candidate here tonight who has been found guilty of public misconduct -- and that is you in the Keating Five scandal. You pressured federal regulators to let your banker friend and political supporter run amok -- LOOK AT ME WHEN I'M TALKING TO YOU-- and it ended up costing the taxpayers billions to fix the mess you and other DC insiders helped to create. I have never engaged in personal or public wrongdoing of any kind, and you know it.""

And then there is this thing called the debate tomorrow. Obama is going to directly challenge McCain's credibility and honor today. I will be very surprised if McCain does not turn up tomorrow with a brick red face, spitting and snarling. All on national teevee. Enjoy the video tomorrow. Psy ops is what this is called.

I wonder that no one points out the fact that Ayers, Rezko and Wright are the only dubious connections that the right has been able to drag up, out of what must be thousands of acquaintances that someone in Obama's position must have made over the course of his career.

I once knew a man with too much dignity. He was consistently conscience of his character and never swayed from his principals.

In a world of John McCain's, it didn't serve him well.

While I wish the campaign didn't have to go negative, McCain obviously has no other tactics so I'm glad Obama is responding with the Keating Five scandal. McCain has a lot of bad associations they can drag out but this one is important because not only is it a major part of McCain's congressional career but it is also "eerily similar" to today's crisis as the Obama camp puts it. Everyone has wondered why they didn't bring this out before and it looks like they did the right thing by keeping it in their war-chest until now. Especially with the economic crisis and banking failures as the major issue. The beauty of this is it not only hits McCain back for all his smears but it also forces his campaign to go on the defensive, and to go on the defensive they will have to talk about McCain's economic policy and attitudes towards regulation. This brings into question McCain's judgment, and he'll have to explain how his judgment has improved. I honestly can't believe the RNC has not just taken complete control of McCain's campaign given how badly Schmidt and Davies are running it. They seem to have no strategy and all they're doing is dragging down the entire party, now putting more and more congressional seats up for grabs. Everyone seems to tap-dance around the race issue too, but there is no doubt in my mind that whoever wins this election, the GOP will always be remembered by history as the party where a rich old white man used a smear campaign steeped in racism against the first potential black president. History won't treat them well for that and neither will the current public. If McCain took the high-road not only would he have been doing better in the polls, he could have protected some sense of honor.

Why raise the line of attack? Because McCain feels he is deserving of the job and Obama isn't, and to him it's just a matter of trying to get the public to finally come to its senses. Because he feels he is deserving, he also believes the shit won't stick to him, so bringing it up is safe.

Obama just needs to stick to his game. It's gotten him this far, it'll get him the rest of the way.

I hope (and think) Obama's plan this week is to drown the Ayers-Rezko-Wright rollout in a barrage of counterattacks and get back to 100% economy once the stories have run the news cycle.

The danger is that he gets too deep in the weeds here. Obama can't win a guilt-by-association war with McCain. Character smears and guilt-by-association attacks will ultimately be more effective against Obama than McCain, because McCain is a filled-in candidate with a well-defined character and story, and Obama is an unknown. That's always been his central weakness.

If Obama can snuff this fire before it gets started, he'll win the election. If he gets trapped in a tit-for-tat game, he'll see all his gains from the last two weeks whither.

Rule No. 1 in politics: Throw not the first low blow, but the last one.

I'm sorry, but if you've all noticed over the last quarter-century-plus, taking the high road somehow always leads us down a political cul-ce-sac.

There is no high road here. It's time to fight fire with fire. If Barack Obama wants to win this election, he has to show voters that he has both the will and means to take it forcefully. And if that means demolishing John McCain's carefully crafted and jealously guarded public reputation as an honest broker, so be it.

After all, the Republicans started it years ago. This time, let's finish it, once and for all.

I'm figuring that most people in the middle ground should be aware that Obama has so far been pretty restrained in replying to most of the exagerrated or lying attacks from the McCain side so they'll cut him some slack in showing some genuine indignation before cutting the "honorable" Senator down at the knees.

McCain's response to any journalist challenging his veracity in his campaign has been red faced anger. Hopefully the whole country will get to see him blow as it seems to be a trigger.

To guarantee this effect it should have been sprung in the debate out of the blue.

Too late now.

Obama has the opportunity to fire full broadsides into McCain for the next 29 days---and given the mess that the world is in right now,*** he should do it without hesitation---if for no other reason than the fact that the policy-chickens of Bushylvanianism---which McCain has embraced wholeheartedly---are coming home to roost.

***Surf over to cnbc.com, if you dare, and take a look at the bloodbath that once was the European and Asian markets. Tokyo down 4%, and everything else down by 5%---and Europe's still got a ways to go before it can duck behind the curtain of its "closing bell."

It looks like that "bailout" was nothing more than a last-minute scam to give Bush and his legions one last opportunity to empty the taxpayers' pockets before history grants us the kindness of removing him from power---and there's only one candidate who publicly declared his campaign "suspended" in order to make it all happen:

John McCain.

I hope this is a preemptive threat, but that Obama follows through in only minimal ways. A mention in the debate is fine. A website with the facts and relationship to the S&L scandal is good. The parallels between the S&L scandal and the current scandal in terms of special interest influence is important. But don't over do it.

But this what Dem supporters don't get. 1) The purpose of negative advertising is to discourage Dems and Inds from voting. It doesn't work with Reps. For pity sakes, people, they don't even care if Palin knows how government works. It also doesn't get people to go for the other guy. It merely reinforces the idea that they are all a bunch of crooks. 2) The Republicans own the media. The only time in the last five months they focused on who runs more negative ads, was about a month ago, when they claim Obama did. They don't even define negative - challenging McCain's claim that Obama will raise taxes on people earning $42,000 is negative in their eyes. And watch the fact checking they do. It's absurd. CNN fact checked Obama's claim that the average cost of health insurance is $12000. CNN concluded that many families would actually make a "profit" from McCain's tax credit. To get there, they had to assume (incorrectly) that the credit goes to the taxpayer and not the insurance co., and that taxpayers get the credit even if they have employer-paid insurance (also not true).

I wish Obama would restrain himself from mudslinging. I don't think it serves him, in his message to get elected, nor in his subsequent administration.

The Keating Five history can only be told completely, and that results in the conviction and censure of the four democratic senators (one a former presidential candidate) and exoneration from censure for John McCain.

The only comment of merit is on the predisposition to de-regulate rather than inquire and construct good governance.

It is equivalent to the Clinton investments, which were largely a cynical distraction.

Also, I do think it would be honorable for Obama to fight back at the character assassination of Ayers, who CHOSE to renounce revolutionary approaches in favor of contributory. He served his time, and EFFECTIVELY rehabilitated.

His work has been praised, including his commitment and approach.

If the McCain campaign seeks to discourage social service, that would be an appropriate response to scape-goating and baiting by association.

Its McCarthyite.

"Did you ever break the law in dissenting against a war resulting from horrendous policy and conducted in a cruel manner?"

Why doesn't anyone ever mention the sexual relationship he had with a junkie who was hooked on drugs while pregnant with his child? What was that woman's name again? Talk about guilt by association!

skeptic,

Are you talking about Cindy? I knew she is a junkie now, but was she a junkie while pregnant???

Wow!!!

Rolling Stone, in their most recent issue, has an article that reveals what a nasty, unintelligent, slimy little bastard John McCain is. What a reprehensible human being. Nothing in Obama’s past compares with a sixty year pattern of sliminess in John McCain’s past.

Though I agree with some of Richard Witty's concerns that going negative could tarnish Obama's image as being above the fray, it is worth pointing out--as this column does--that McCain's involvement in Keating 5 is different than something like the Clinton's investment deals. If framed correctly, revisiting Keating 5 demonstrates the ways that McCain has always been for deregulation--even at the expense of taxpayers. He was censured by the Senate Ethics Committee for it, which is also different than a lot of the Clinton so-called "scandals." As you point out, Keating 5 was not a partisan witch hunt; it involved both parties. But I don't see how it matters in terms of the Obama campaign that some of the guilty were Democratic senators. Who cares? None of them is running for president or involved in Obama's campaign; John McCain is running for president and was directly involved in this boondoggle. And, really, what needs to be emphasized is that McCain has repeatedly taken advantage of the system at the taxpayers' expense.

Also, we should point out that Ayers did not "serve his time," since (as far as I understand) his case was thrown out because of technicalities. He also hasn't really renounced his activities--at least not sufficiently enough for conservatives.

I think instead the key to defense against Ayers is what was mentioned in this column: Obama must remind that he has repeatedly denounced Ayers's terrorist actions; that he was 8 when Ayers committed them; and that they worked on an educational board together, that's it. He needs to undermine the very notion of guilt by association: can we all be condemned because we have worked briefly with someone who committed crimes some 40 years ago?

Bringing up the Keating Five these next few weeks is perfectly appropriate, especially when the economy is anything but robust.

Watch what happens with stocks this morning.

Obama: John wants to take our mind off of the economical mess, the very one he helped create with his deregulation mindset. Take the Keating Five....

That's not attacking, it's giving us a history lesson!

I suspect the McCain handlers are hoping that Obama will react to these attacks by getting down and dirty. They know they will lose if they continue to play the hand they presently hold. If they can show that Obama is no different than any other politician and is willing to drop his values when threatened, then they can make a case for switching to McCain. On the other hand, if Obama continues to talk about issues that matter, then he will win. As with Mr. Smith, people are starting to listen. Now is no time to change the message.

Another thing not much mentioned is how McCain left his wife when she was in a car crash. So she was all wracked up and he had an affair with Cindy... whom he later married.

Now that's honor for you.

Another thing not much mentioned is how McCain left his wife when she was in a car crash. So she was all wracked up and he had an affair with Cindy... whom he later married.

Now that's honor for you.

Another thing not much mentioned... - Clem

Actually, the WaPo did quite a long article on this today.

Ten bucks says McCain knocks over the podium and storms offstage halfway through the debate Tuseday night.

Hilzoy:

Great post! Thank you.

and if palin continues her "palling w/ terrorists" line, i say we go hard after her association w/ alaska's secessionist party and todd's membership in that party. . .all of which the mccain campaign has already admitted is true.

I wold hope that a line were drawn from the S&L deals to Sen. Gramm (and spouse) to Enron to our current situation. The theme to hit, IMHO, it that Hon. Sen. McCain (and the GOP generally) stuck to his guns as we lived through over twenty years of evidence that it was a bad idea. Not that I think Senator McCain had any real conception of whether the policies recommended to him by Mr. Keating, or Sen. Gramm, or Mr. Greenspan et alii made any real sense or not, but the fact remains that he did support them consistently. Add this to his support the stellar policies for the telecoms, health insurance cos., and war and peace, just to mix things up.

“I never give them hell. I just tell the truth and they think it's hell.” -- Harry S. Truman

Here's what Obama should turn to McCain and say:

"John, I've tried to give you the benefit of the doubt. I hesitate to call anyone a liar, because I don't have a window into another man's soul. But there comes a point where I have no choice but to assume you are repeating what you know to be lies. You have hired a protege of Karl Rove to smear me the way Rove smeared you in 2000. You once said I would rather lose a war than lose an election. Well, you'd rather lose your honor than lose an election."