A complement to the boss’s piece this morning about the rage that’s not on your front page and to Tammy Bruce’s argument on Fox recently about the non-difference between anti-Hillary and anti-Palin sexism. Scarborough’s right that The One, with his monster treasury, has spent more on negative ads lately than McCain has, but that’s not really the point: There’s a difference between an ad that’s negative because it claims McCain will be bad for the economy and an ad that’s negative because it claims McCain eats babies. The problem with the coverage isn’t that it shrugs at examples of the former coming from the left, it’s that it shrugs at examples of the latter. See, e.g., John Lewis, just like Nicole Wallace says.

Update: Maybe I missed it, but I can’t recall seeing a single analytical piece along the lines of the one the AP dropped on Palin a few weeks ago for her supposed race-baiting on just why it is that so many leftists seem perfectly comfortable with Bill Ayers. Even the most reasonable Democrats on the media landscape can’t seem to muster any outrage about him, and simply accept dealing with the occasional domestic terrorist as the price of doing political business. Some baby-eaters are more equal than others.