Conservative blogs have been in a tizzy today about the circumstantial case made by The Jawa Report that a YouTube video attacking Sarah Palin as a secessionist could possibly be tied to the Obama campaign. Ethan Winner, a Los Angeles public relations specialist, who posted the video under the nome de plume "eswinner" has released a statement saying that the Obama campaign had nothing to do with the video. (The video was based, in part, on an erroneous report in the New York Times that Palin had been a member of the Alaskan Independence Party. She was not, though her husband, Todd, did join, and she spoke at the party's convention.)

The Winner statement is posted after the jump. The moral, as you read his explanation, may be a repeat of the "Vote Different" scandal: Anonymity is a tough thing to maintain online. One other note: Even if the Obama campaign or the McCain campaign produced the ad, there is no requirement under federal election law that they disclose authorship, as long as the ad is distributed free online, not as a paid advertisement. The Internet is, as designed, something of a regulatory blackhole. In the words of the FEC: "Posting a video on a Web site does not result in a 'public communication' unless it is placed on another person's website for a fee."

(more...)

In an interview on "CBS Evening News" tonight, Barack Obama's running mate told Katie Couric that the campaign shouldn't have played the Age Card. And he's right.:

CBS' Katie Couric: "Are you disappointed with the tone of the campaign -- the lipstick on the pig stuff and some of the ads? And you guys haven't been completely guilt-free, making fun of John McCain's inability to use a computer?"

Biden: "I thought that was terrible, by the way."

Couric: "Why'd you do it then?"

Biden: "I didn't know we did it, and if I'd had anything to do with it, we would have never done it. I don't think Barack... you know, I just think that was..."

Couric: "Did Barack Obama approve that ad? He said he did, right?"

Biden: "I don't think anything was intentional about that. They were trying to make another point."

* UPDATE: Biden also said:

That's very different than deliberately taking a vote Barack Obama had to teach children about how to deal with child-predators and saying he was teaching them sex education in kindergarten. Very different in degree.

I would post the full interview, but I couldn't figure out a way to do it without making you watch a Sprint ad. If you want to watch it, it's here.

But it often isn't. There are currently two alarming controversies regarding absentee ballots that -- all blame aside -- should cause us all concern.

First, in Ohio, the Democratic Secretary of State Jennifer Brunner has rejected more than 1,000 absentee ballot applications that were produced by the McCain Campaign because the voters did not check a box on the form. The box, which is not required by law, and therefore did not need to be printed on the form, simply asks the applicant to verify his or her status as a qualified voter. The whole case has now gone to court. There is a tragic irony to all of this. Back in 2004, the Republican Secretary of State, Ken Blackwell, told state county boards to reject registrations that were not printed on 80-lb. card stock. Back then the shoes were on the other feet. Democrats cried foul, and Republicans said they were just following the law.

Meanwhile, in Wisconsin, where the Republican Attorney General is suing the state election board to demand to review state voter rolls, another problem has surfaced. Absentee ballots sent by the McCain campaign gave some voters applications that include incorrect return addresses for processing. The state GOP says this was a "database error." Some Democrats suspect dirty tricks. Either way, these sorts of problems are a national embarrassment.

• The economic crisis hurts us all. [Cute Overload]

• "There are many, many places in the world not to get lost. And many people not to be when you are there. And many cunning plans to escape. In Abu Ghraib (Yes, that Abu Ghraib). An American contractor. Flagging down passing cars and asking for directions. These are things not to be, and do." [Baghdad Bureau (new favorite blog!)]

• "He Was My Coconut Dessert" [TNR, and O Globo]

• "Did you know that the White House once had an orangery?" [Serious Eats]

• "As the sun arcs over the Manhattan skyline and the markets start dancing nervously out of time, the lyrics I've been scribbling over breakfast have been removed and replaced by spreadsheets with large numbers in tiny font as we wrestle with EU budgets in advance of meetings later today with Presidents Sarkozy and Barroso." [Bono's Blog (yes, that Bono)]

Ben Smith fact-checks the McCain campaign's ridiculous conference call assault on the press. But it should be remembered that Steve Schmidt is doing this for two (nefarious) reasons:

1. he's hoping to work the refs: if he complains enough about press bias, we mainstream sorts will cower, cringe and try to seek false equivalences between the two campaigns.

2. the more time we spend covering this nonsense, the less we'll spend on the real issues in this campaign.

Sorry, Steve. Not buying.

Cranking the dial around this morning, I heard someone encourage me to "vote for McCain...570." Turns out two stations in town have changed their names in order to capitalize on interest in the election:

Red Zebra flips recently acquired News/Talk WTNT-AM/Washington, DC, to Political Talk as "McCain 570 WTNT," while sister Liberal Talk WWRC-AM becomes "Obama 1260." Each will feature a mix of election talk, opinion and analysis from both sides of the campaign, as well as the appropriate lineup of syndicated air personalities.

I guess the fact that the gimmick is bi-partisan is what keeps it from being illegal, but it's still sort of ridiculous:

cgy1 comments on my last post:

You do know that Sen. McCain's female staffers in the Senate, on average, make more than his male staffers, and that McCain's female staffers make more, on average, than Obama's female staffers right? Just because McCain doesn't agree with using federal law to legislate equal pay doesn't mean he doesn't pay his female staffers a fair wage compared to his male staffers.

Yeah, I saw that article, too. And I can't say I'm surprised. Obama's staff, for one, is probably younger. And McCain has some of the longest-serving staffers in the Senate. Besides, that has exactly nothing to do with my point.

My personal interactions with the guy have shown him to be consistently respectful and even deferential towards women, and the women on his staff are some of the gutsiest, hardest-working, most out-spoken people I've met. So what? The problem with McCain's position isn't that he is, personally, a sexist or that he, personally, would pay women less than men. The problem is that he does not support legislation that would strengthen the legal tools that allow women to sue those that do. As I put it here (my second time linking to it, sorry):

Usually, having lots of women in one's life is a cure for this sort of myopia. It's McCain's peculiar fate to be surrounded by women—heiresses, CEOs, hard-charging junior staffers without spouses or children*—who've been curiously immune to the curse of sexism. He is great for the women he knows; then there are all those other women out there—the ones who might not be able to get birth control, and, perhaps even more to the point, those whose background and income haven't given them the means to combat inequality.

I think Palin's personal history sets her apart from the women I mention above -- she's middle class, with a spouse and family -- and maybe that's one reason she sets aside the usual conservative take to embrace Title IX. Or maybe that's just political incoherence. Maybe someday someone can ask her and we'll know!

It seems to me that our elected officials would serve us better if they slowed down, held some hearings and negotiated the best possible bailout--one that recognized the best interests of taxpayers rather than simply focusing on saving the greedheads--instead of rushing off for their election year recess this Friday. I mean, c'mon guys: this is important.

Political convention holds that campaign operatives fight wars with reporters mostly in private--over tense drinks, in nasty emails, during expletive-laden phone calls, or from sneering looks on the campaign bus or plane. The McCain campaign, like other campaigns, does all that. But it has also long made public spats with networks, reporters and publications a part of its public face.

About an hour ago, Steve Schmidt turned this public shaming up a notch by condemning the New York Times, easily the most influential newspaper in America, as a partisan rag in unusually blunt and categorical language.

"Whatever the New York Times once was, it is today not by any standard a journalistic organization. It is a pro-Obama advocacy organization," Schmidt announced on a well attended conference call. "This is an organization that is completely, totally, 150 percent in the tank for the Democratic candidate."

Schmidt's specific complaints seemed to center not just on today's story about the past relationship between McCain campaign manager Rick Davis and Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, but what Schmidt characterized as an unwillingness by the paper to do the same level of vetting and investigation of Barack Obama as it has done of John McCain. "You are not going to read this on the front page of the New York Times, but the Obama campaign is surrounded by people who" have been involved in the lobbying business. On the same call, Davis said that the Times writes about him so much that there must be some "Davis envy going on."

This may be a nifty bit of misdirection. It may be a legitimate complaint. It may be a play to rile up the Republican base. (One of the McCain campaign's best fund-raising days of the spring came the day after the New York Times suggested--without definitive evidence--that McCain had an inappropriate relationship with a a lady lobbyist.) Whatever it is, it's certainly will get the talkers talking, which is most definitely Schmidt's intent.

UPDATE: Here is the audio of most the exchange about the New York Times, thanks to TPM.

ANOTHER UPDATE: The Obama campaign is taking exception to Schmidt's take on the Times:

# of probing stories the NY Times has written over the course of the campaign about Barack Obama, his life, his religion, his childhood, his politics, his time in the state senate, his time in the U.S. Senate, his family, his religion, his friends, his fundraising and all other manner of associations: more than 40 (see below)

# of stories the NY Times has written over the course of the campaign about the last major financial regulatory crisis, resulting in a huge bailout, and which John McCain was centrally involved in with his political godfather Charles Keating: 0

More from the Obama response after the jump.

(more...)

A depressing study written up in the Washington Post today that shows men with "traditional attitudes" towards women earn more than men with "egalitarian" views. And while women as a group earn less than either, women with egalitarian attitudes toward, er, themselves earn more women with traditional views.

The study used information from Labor Department's National Longitudinal Survey of Youth, and compared wages among people in similar jobs, so many of the usual theories about wage disparity don't apply. As one of the study's authors puts it:

"Some would say, 'Of course traditional men earn more than traditional women -- they are both fulfilling their desires to play different roles in the home and workplace,' " said Judge, emphasizing that the researchers compared working men with working women, not working men with women who stay home. "Our results do not support that view. If you were a traditional-minded woman, would you say, 'I am fine working the same hours as a traditional-minded man in the same industry with the same education but earning substantially less'? I don't think traditional-minded women would say that."

Sadly, if Sarah Palin adopts McCain's views on the equal pay act, she pretty much would be saying exactly that.

And if can drop the snark for a moment: I am actually really curious about what kind of conversation Palin and McCain would have -- if, you know forced to -- about equal pay. Palin's "Title IX" response at their joint town hall (and to Charlie Gibson) was a bit of nonsequitor but if we interpret that to mean that she is in favor of federal intervention to force proportionate spending on women, is she also in favor of federal intervention to force equal payment of them?

UPDATE: And I guess they don't agree on Title IX, either. McCain, last May:

The U.S. Department of Education under President Clinton took liberties in interpreting the law and without debate determined that universities must fund men's and women's sports programs in proportion to the ratio of male to female students, or else lose federal funding for any part of the university including financial aid. In doing so, the adverse consequence of this interpretation unfortunately has been that many schools have adopted policies of strictly equal funding for male and female athletic programs. Unfortunately, many popular athletic programs have been cut because the overall amount of funding available for athletics programs will not sustain identical men's and women's programs in every sport.

Well, that would be a tragedy. Though demanding "strictly equal funding for male and female athletic programs" it is not actually what Title IX does. I am sure many female athletes wish it was!