This Op-Ed in the Hill is one of the few I've seen in a hill paper (i.e. Politico, the Hill, Roll Call, etc) which actually hits McCain for his double talk. Sadly, there's a lot more examples than this article could cover... What happened to the John McCain of 2000?
The authors' conclusion pretty solidly lays out the fundamental diffrence between the McCain of today and McCain 8 years ago.
John McCain in 2000 ran not just to win, but to make a broader point that the system in Washington was broken and needed to be changed. Consider this quote: "Neither party should be defined by pandering to the outer reaches of American politics and the agents of intolerance, whether they be Louis Farrakhan or Al Sharpton on the left, or Pat Robertson or Jerry Falwell on the right." My, how times change. The McCain of 2008 is running for one reason: to get himself elected. If that means promising to perpetuate the broken system in Washington and continue the failed policies of George W. Bush, so be it, as long as it leads to McCain winning on Election Day. This ultimate difference between the two McCains is best illustrated by early American statesman Henry Clay’s famous declaration, "I’d rather be right than be president."
John McCain in 2000 probably would have agreed with that statement. Would the John McCain of 2008?
Judging from his ever-changing campaign positions, we doubt it.