For all of McCain's supposed experience and knowledge of foreign affairs, one would think that he would be able to articulate an original thought regarding the ongoing conflict between Russia and Georgia.  Alas, this is not the case, unless of course McCain moonlights as an editor for Wikipedia.  Per Political Insider:

A Wikipedia editor notices some similarities between Sen. John McCain's speech today on the crisis in Georgia and the Wikipedia article on the country Georgia. They appear similar enough that most people would consider parts of McCain's speech to be derived directly from Wikipedia.

First instance:

one of the first countries in the world to adopt Christianity as an official religion (Wikipedia)

vs.

one of the world's first nations to adopt Christianity as an official religion (McCain)

Second instance:

After the Russian Revolution of 1917, Georgia had a brief period of independence as a Democratic Republic (1918-1921), which was terminated by the Red Army invasion of Georgia. Georgia became part of the Soviet Union in 1922 and regained its independence in 1991. Early post-Soviet years was marked by a civil unrest and economic crisis. (Wikipedia)

vs.

After a brief period of independence following the Russian revolution, the Red Army forced Georgia to join the Soviet Union in 1922. As the Soviet Union crumbled at the end of the Cold War, Georgia regained its independence in 1991, but its early years were marked by instability, corruption, and economic crises. (McCain)

http://blogs.cqpolitics.com/politicalins ider/2008/08/did-mccain-plagarize-his-sp eec.html

I imagine that if called on it, McCain would bluster on about Obama's use of a few lines first spoken by Deval Patrick, but this episode arguably strikes at the core of McCain's campaign, which is all about his supposed "experience" in a time of international turmoil.  If anyone would be as well versed on international affairs after reading Wikipedia as McCain, then what exactly entitles him to be President?

Paris Hilton's response to McCain's ad has already caused such a stir that McCain's camp has had to issue a response of its own.  As documented at Open Left:

Due to the extraordinary number of inquiries, please see our campaign's response to Paris Hilton's recently released video in which she puts forward her version of an energy plan:

"It sounds like Paris Hilton supports John McCain's 'all of the above' approach to America's energy crisis - including both alternatives and drilling.  Paris Hilton might not be as big a celebrity as Barack Obama, but she obviously has a better energy plan." ---Tucker Bounds, spokesman John McCain 2008

http://www.openleft.com/showDiary.do?dia ryId=7347

Matt Stoller and Chris Bowers both view this as a huge problem for McCain because now his clever little attack ad has caused him to get into a public and ongoing spat with Paris Hilton, of all people.  His campaign has devolved into an Extra! featurette.

Well, so much for the integrity of the daily tracking polls.  Who knows what is to be believed at this point.  There must be some methodological differences between the two outfits.

http://www.gallup.com/

This seems to be a, dare I say it, PRESUMPTUOUS move.  While Obama plans to open 25-30 offices in Indiana, McCain plans to open ... not a single one.  According to the Indianapolis Star:

Jonathan Swain, a spokesman for Obama's campaign in Indiana, said plans are to have 25 to 30 campaign offices in the state.

...

McCain, the presumptive Republican nominee, is taking a different approach to Indiana.

Some might call it confident; some might call it laid-back at best.

Asked whether the campaign has any plans to open an office in Indiana, campaign spokeswoman Leah Yoon -- who is based in Michigan, not Indiana -- had a one-word answer: "No."

http://www.indystar.com/apps/pbcs.dll/ar ticle?AID=/20080713/NEWS05/807130367/100 8/LOCAL19

Granted, Indiana is not traditionally in play for Democrats at the presidential level, but should McCain really be so confident about his chances there?  Were Obama to win Indiana, he would virtually be assured to win the presidency.

Today I noticed a few resident dumbasses repeating the "Obama played the race card against McCain" smear as they are wont to do, so I thought I'd set the record straight.  The fact is, McCain has run a commercial with Obama's face on the $100 dollar bill.

Is the media buying McCain's story that Obama played the race card, using his description of McCain doing things analogous to putting his face on a dollar bill?  Of course, most everyone has taken it as an analogy and McCain, as well as some of the media, have been looking to crucify Obama for it.  The thing is, McCain actually DID put obama's face on a dollar bill -- over a month ago in a little-seen web video.  The point is, Obama's analogy -- whether he realized it or not, and maybe he heard about the video and only recalled it subconsciously -- isn't even an analogy, it's true!

Plus, Team McCain turned him pansy yellow, made him all starry-eyed, then blew him up.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/michael-sh aw/reading-the-pictures-emdo_b_116451.ht ml

Were I more gifted, I'd embed the pictures cited by the article, but you can see them at the above link.  You may now go back to your regularly scheduled trolling.

One would hope that this is an outlier, but clearly there is work to be done.  An Ohio poll released today by Rasmussen has McCain leading by 10 points when including "leaners" (6 points without).  Between this and the PPP poll showing Obama leading by 8 (as well as various other polls showing Obama with a slight lead), I'm not sure what to believe.

http://rasmussenreports.com/public_conte nt/politics/election_20082/2008_presiden tial_election/ohio/election_2008_ohio_pr esidential_election

McCain has had a bit of a tough news cycle lately.  Well, it has gotten even worse for the ol' maverick, as Drudge reported today that the New York Times has refused to run a McCain editorial in rebuttal to Obama's previous editorial re: Iraq.  While McCain was all too happy to bash Obama using the familiar "cut and run" mantra, that didn't square with the Times' editorial standards.  The problem, according to op-ed editor David Shipley:

'The Obama piece worked for me because it offered new information (it appeared before his speech); while Senator Obama discussed Senator McCain, he also went into detail about his own plans.'

Shipley continues: 'It would be terrific to have an article from Senator McCain that mirrors Senator Obama's piece. To that end, the article would have to articulate, in concrete terms, how Senator McCain defines victory in Iraq.'

Apparently some of the wingers are now spinning this as an example of liberal media bias, rather than a failure for McCain to actually tell the American people what he means by "victory" in Iraq.  Of course, that would mean that they would have to come up with obtainable objectives rather than continuing to live in the military fantasyland in which "victory" is ever just around the corner.  The full draft editorial is available on Drudge's website, for those so inclined.

Nice.  Obama's now up by 2 in Nevada.  Granted, this is statistically insignificant, but last month McCain was up by 3, and two months ago he was up by 6.  Clearly the momentum is in Obama's favor.  The improvement seems to have come among self-identified Democrats.

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_c ontent/politics/election_20082/2008_pres idential_election/nevada/election_2008_n evada_presidential_election