I see your point about the issue getting construed as tit-for-tat, but I think the video and Obama's recent attacks do a good job at defining it not only (or even primarily) about McCain's possibly criminal guilt but about his embarrassing lack of judgment on regulation. Having the Phil Graham quotes and McCain's own call for deregulation from March in the video steer this from an innuendo-laden hit piece to a pretty effective case that this guy is genuinely dangerous even if he no longer has a sugar daddy.

Also, did Errol Morris make this? The music and interview reminded me a lot of his stuff.

But who's to say they can't do both? The message can be: we are in a crisis, McCain doesn't get it, he didn't get it in the 80s, he sold himself out in the 80s, and he'll sell you out today.

Seems to me the smart political play is to talk about Keating - and ideally get McCain to revoke his apology for his actions - and then immediately pivot back to the need for greater regulation.  Which is what Obama is almost certainly going to do.

Didn't the whole idea of unilateral disarmament kinda die out back in the 80s?

So explain to me how it would seem less political to bring up the Keating 5 out of nowhere or try to link it merely to the banking crisis, which would turn a policy disagreement into a character attack?

The Obama team has put a lot of stock in timing things right, so they don't go overly negative too soon against a Republican politician with an undeservedly good reputation.  McCain always draws first blood, and then Obama comes back hard on message.  Had they come out a week ago with the full Keating, then McCain would be crying foul for the character attacks and then HITTING BACK with Ayers and Wright instead of HITTING FIRST.  This way, Obama keeps the high ground.

And what if they waited another week or two before unveiling Keating?  All we would see this week in the news would be Democrats on defense agains the swiftboats.  Stop fretting, y'all.  Keating is relevant.  Make McCain answer for it.

fbacon2: bingo on all point.

The contrasting speeches of the candidates today are instructive: McCain gave a crabby speech that accuses Obama of all the things that his (McCain's) campaign has been doing. Obama has an above-the-fray statesmanlike statement pointing to the market chaos today and stating that last week's bailout is only the beginning of fixing the mess W has left us in. I was inclined to agree that bringing up Keating might be premature; however, after seeing the clip, and reading the McCain campaign's fumbling response, I have concluded that this rapid and forceful counterpunch to McCain's latest campaign shift was the right thing to do. The point is to ensure, to the extent that the campaign storyline is questions about one of the candidates, that candidate is McCain. McCain's tactics and behavior have legitimized questions regarding his character, which was a main campaign selling point. And there's lots more to tell about McCain, if necessary, between now and election day.

I have gone back and forth but ultimately I agree with commenters who say that the timing is politically appropriate.

Barack has a lot of credibility with the voters right now for caring about their problems and focusing on the issues. It is clear that McCain started this latest spat, and has been on the offensive nearly the whole campaign. Obama can focus on both Keating5 and the issues: by waging a low-level campaign with web videos and maybe surrogates, relying on surrogates in the mainstream media (McCain's abject failure to win over the media is a huge story in this race), and by personally staying mainly above the fray and focusing 80-90% on economic and foreign policy substance.

Another potential consideration here is that Joe Biden is out of action for two days as a surrogate. The video could be useful to do some of the talking for them.  Obama has proven himself adept at advocating for himself on the stump, but this is an issue that is probably best left mostly to surrogates.

As others have said, Keating 5 does arguably bear at least some relationship to currently relevant issues. Obama takes a small hit to his credibility by raising the issue, but also reduces the risk that McCain's constant harping on Ayers will dominate media stories going forward.

The best case scenario for Barack is that this is seen as a low-level skirmish initiated by John McCain while Barack continues to spend most of his time focusing on the urgency of our times and painting John McCain as out of touch. If this scenario occurs and Barack is able to hammer it home in the debate tomorrow, McCain could slide even further in the polls.

If Obama is attacked and takes the high road, the blogs roll their eyes and lament his failing to respond more forcefully.

If Obama is attacked and responds forcefully, the the blogs roll their eyes and lament how he failed to take the high road.

Ben Smith at Politico has the early returns, and they favor Obama/Keating:

    Obama apparently had today's Charles Keating attack in the can, ready to deploy against an

    attempt to revive Bill Ayers, and it seems to be working.

    A glance at Google Trends finds "keating economics" the second-most-popular search

    term right now. Numbers 8, 11, 12, and 21 are terms like "keating five" and "charles keating."

    Bill Ayers shows up at 36, just after "mccain keating."

   The first term is Neal Kashkari, newly tapped to head the bailout. Voter registration terms also

   rank high.

The other thing is that Jason treats "tit-for-tat" as though it were some immature outburst of playground bullydom, when in fact it's well known to be a highly effective means of eliciting cooperative behavior in a non-cooperative game. (Wikipedia dixit.)

If the Obama folk are smart - and they *are* - I bet that behind the scenes they're letting the McCain people know that "tit-for-tat" goes both ways, and they'll pull the Keating stuff if McCain will pull the Ayers stuff.

Note that this is not a speech by Obama; it is not an television advertisement.  It is a video documentary attack one sees only by going to a website.  As such it is just below the radar of average American political conciousness.  In other words, politics junkies or folks who check into Huffington Post or watch Countdown will pick this up, but most people will not.

This is a warning shot: if McCain keeps at it with Ayers and Wright, then Obama will ramp this up--TV ads, mailers, etc.  There is still time for McCain to stand down.

Chalk me up as another person who thinks this was a smart move on Obama's part.  If Obama had waited on this (or something similar) for a few days/a week, it would have been too late.  With McCain and his campaign overtly stating he's going to go negative over the weekend and their roll-out today, it was inevitable that the media and punditry were going to spend the next few days discussing McCain's (desparate) new strategy and the efficacy of linking Obama to Ayers.  Even if the media were to come down hard against McCain for this, they would still be talking about, and thus repeating, McCain's charges against Obama.  By counter-attacking now, Obama ensures that the media will spend the next few days talking about how the campaign has taken a turn for the negative, and showing BOTH candidates attacks on one another. As a result, both attacks get equal air time and the net effect is most likely a draw, which is more helpful to Obama than McCain at this point.  I wish politics weren't this way, but this is the world in which we live.  It's not pretty, and I think it does damage to both, but in the end it does less damage to Obama than simply having McCain's attacks out there operating in a vacuum.

I agree with Jason that it was a mistake for the Obama campaign to release its 13-minute Keating Five

So now can we orget all that talk in the primaries about how Obama would wither under the baleful GOP attack machine, forever bringing a knife to a gun fight? Obama has shown that he can and will trade body blows with McCain--and in a way that makes the Obama blows much more policy-relevant and bone-crushing.

Ayers? An aging 60s radical that Obama barely knows? Who gives a purple fuck!? Wright? Some crazy preacher that Obama has already denounced, before going on to win the nomination? That's so....June.

A collapsed S&L that McCain improperly used his influence to assist, and then collapsed, taking life savings with it? THAT goes right to the heart of what voters care about ca. Oct 2008.

Sorry, Jason, I'm with the talkback crowd. You're overthinking this one. I think Obama's timing is spot-on.

Parry-counter-close-disarm-dispatch. It's a fundamental combat paradigm.

A brief follow-up for Chris's post on John Dowd's muddying of McCain's Keating Five contrition

Me too.

The timing was perfect. The issue is completely relevant to the financial crisis, AND, I see nothing at all wrong with see-you-and-raise-you here. Also, they had this in reserve. They didn't just make this documentary overnight. They were sitting on it until McCain got smeary, then pow. And I am sure there is more where this came from. And I am sure McCain is sure. Screw McCain. He now deserves to be completely shown for what he is. It's all true, all relevant, all admissible.

Plus, the response was a basket of flowers for Obama:

www.americablog.com/.../mccain-now-saying-keating-five-scandal.html

As Mike and many others have pointed out, Bill Ayers was curiously absent from last night's debate