When the New York Times refused John McCain's op-ed piece about Iraq this week, the Republican candidate's team did what any perturbed campaign would: They leaked the details to the Drudge Report, with a slant.

That slant?

That the Times would only run a McCain op-ed if it "mirrored" the one submitted by Barack Obama, titled "My Plan For Iraq," less than a week ago. This is, McCain's supporters will argue, evidence of the Times' obvious liberal bias. Which would be a worthwhile argument, were it not already accepted wisdom.

The Times' op-ed editor David Shipley told McCain's camp: "'It would be terrific to have an article from Senator McCain that mirrors Senator Obama's piece. [...] I'm not going to be able to accept this piece as currently written." He later emailed Drudge: "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….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."

To which McCain's camp says the Times Op-Ed-ers are not asking for a re-worked draft, but an entirely new Iraq plan.

Which, uh, they kind of are.