An infant is subject to the sovreignty of the head of state of the geographical area in which he is born. The conflicting sovreignty was one of the the foundations of the Natural Born requirement in the US Constitution.
At this point, given the politicization of the courts, you cannot be certain how any of these issues would come down on a given set of facts.
In the current setting, I think in a suit seeking to enject Obama for failing to meet the test because of his failure of the place of birth test, I think the Supreme Court would likely decide that McCain flunks also because he fails the same test for the same reason.
I would grant you that the Obama result would be clearer than McCain although the fact that McCain also has a problem with his citizenship (the statute under which he claims was enacted several years after his birth and is not retroactive) combined with the place of birth problem, makes it likely that McCain would be held ineligible also.
Note that many of the European countries treat offspring to the second generation as citizens. Thus the grandchild of a person born in Sweden is a Swedish citizen eligible for a Swedish passport.
Ridiculous.
McCain was born to American parents on American soil, the Panama Canal Zone. He has more credibility for native born status than a child born to American parents on foreign military bases like Germany.
You need to learn some history. Until Carter turned the Cnal Zone over to Panama, it was American soil, and children born there are as American as Daniel Inoue (Territory of Hawaii) and Ernest Gruening (Territory of Alaska).
Sometimes I read ignorant stuff on FR, but you just took the prize.