My sentiments, also.

My guess, though, is the GOP would certainly find a way, through some front organization, to use them against a Democrat.  I think their mouths would water at the prospect of something such as this.

And that is one huge reason we are not Republicans.

"Nothing in all the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity"

You're right. I just deleted a comment I made about the possibility that such recordings exist. I shouldn't have made it.

When you're up to your ass in alligators, it's hard to remember that your primary objective was to drain the swamp.

Thanks, I agree.  Sometimes ardent supporters need to step back and keep their moral compass centered.

Lots of American servicemen who were held as POWs and tortured managed to avoid collaborating. Your saying that the question of whether McCain collaborated or not should be off limits, given that character is considered to be an important issue when it comes to whether someone is fit to be president, makes no sense, as far as I can see.

Republicans are like fetuses: both are incapable of thought. That's why Republicans are against abortion.

They accused a man who received the Silver Star, Bronze Star, and three Purple Hearts of being a liar and a coward, and they called a man who left three limbs in Vietnam a traitor. In my book it's more than fair game - it's the devil's due. My only question would be regarding its effectiveness - if it helps our side to win then let 'er rip, but if it hurts our side then I say keep it canned.

It can work a number of ways without "criticizing" McCain for breaking under torture. It can note that since McCain broke under torture it appears that some forms of torture actually works, and that could explain why McCain voted with George W. Bush against banning waterboarding. There are many, many other ways to work it without criticizing him for it, but the point is simply to get that information into the discussion and let the voters decide what they think about it.

It could legitimately work the same way that McCain is working the Texas GOP ad issue - a third party puts the ad out, our candidate denounces it in the strongest possible terms (and if the candidate is Obama then he can denounce it honestly), while the third party insists that the candidate has no authority over what ads it airs and it will do as it damn-well pleases, thank-you-very-much. Message gets out and our candidate looks good for denouncing it. Amoral politics? Yep. Sauce for the goose? Yep.

The best part about it? Our candidate could take a dig at McCain for the McCain-Feingold Act which conservatives loathe. Before McCain-Feingold the candidate had tighter control over and responsibility for the message. Our candidate could rightly say that they'd love to squash the offensive ad but their hands are tied by McCain-Feingold. This will have little effect on Democratic voters but it could help to diminish base Republicans' enthusiasm about voting.

I think someone ought to run with this somewhere in late October. The Obama campaign (rightly) wouldn't touch this with a 10' pole, but I'm sure that a 527 could air an ad in a small media market that would create the appropriate uproar at the appropriate time...

I'm finally getting married...