Using the public information compiled on the Web site of the non-partisan group Legistorm, Murdock concludes that, on average, women in McCain's office are paid more than the men in McCain's office -- $1.04 for every dollar a man makes. Men in Obama's office make more than women do; female employees make 83 cents for every dollar made by male employees.
Murdock frames this as an issue of pay equity, but it's not really -- if anything, it's more a matter of a "glass ceiling."
(Or, at least, that's what feminist groups would likely be saying if the situations were reversed.)
Only one of Obama's five best-paid Senate staffers is a woman. Of McCain's five best-paid Senate staffers, three are women.
Of Obama's top 20 salaried Senate staffers, seven are women. Of McCain's top 20 salaried Senate staffers, 13 are women.
True that McCain is more senior and may have a larger budget just because he has a larger budget does not mean his women staff will be paid more than his men staff. Nor does it mean that he will have more women on his staff either does it.
Also true that Obama has many high powered women on his staff but that he has women on campaign staff does not mean they outnumber the men, or are paid equivalent.
What this exemplifies is that it would be a mistake for feminists to latch themselves onto political parties rather than endorsing candidates based on their records of feminism. Even if your most valued issue is abortion there are plenty of pro-choice republicans and pro-life democrats. When you are too allied to one party or another, you will eventually be taken for granted. It seems to me this has been the case with the Dems and feminists.
Feminists should broaden your influence by adhering to feminist issues and candidates rather than political parties.
And in this election, it seems to me that McCain is more of the feminist than Obama is.