There seems to be an idea that name-checking Ukrainian politicians and Sevastopol, as McCain did, counts for something.  As Jim Geraghty says:

It’s a very, very different feeling than having George W. Bush at the top of the ticket.

Well, it’s hard to argue with feelings, but it seems to me that McCain was citing those details in an attempt to demonstrate expertise but ended up seeming like the candidate who felt obliged to rattle off a bunch of names to prove that he knows something about the subject, as if he was concerned that someone might think that he doesn’t.  Presumably, journalists already give him the benefit of the doubt when he talks about these matters, but as I heard it there was some similarity to the second presidential debate in 2000, so memorably spoofed by SNL, in which Bush dropped foreign names to show that he was not the clueless lightweight that a lot of people thought him to be.  In fact, that debate and the spoof of it resembled tonight’s agreement-fest more than a little. 

The break-up of the Ukrainian coalition government is not as obscure as talking about forgiving African debt, so in that sense McCain should get less credit for knowing what anyone who reads the news already knew, but what might bear closer examination is whether Bush’s old debate answers on foreign policy are substantially better or worse than McCain’s.  (Bonus quote from then-Candidate Bush: “There’s much more to life than the Dow Jones Industrial Average”–Republicans had better hope that people still believe that!)