(And to the above comment posted below his analysis on his blog, the author responded how? Oh, wait. He said nothing.)
And how does this invalidate his analysis, other than the misspelled word appeared on the earlier versions in 2000 and 2004?
It invalidates the following part of his accusation:
“The fact that the same typo remains on this second version is an indication that it was not independently published but rather amended, suddenly. The fact that there was a typo, at all, in both versions indicates haste on the part of the DNC.”
Since the typo has been there since at least 2000, there was no “sudden” amendment and certainly no “haste.”