Here in New York, the press and public actually seem to care about the fact that the husband of GOP Senate candidate Jeanine Pirro is a convicted tax felon who cheated on her and fathered a child. Clifford Levy of The New York Times wonders whether that means Pirro is the victim of a sexist double standard:

...Ms. Pirro's aides contend that even now, when women have made many strides in politics, she faces a bigger burden overcoming her spouse's transgressions than a male politician might, a view that is not uncommon in political circles.

...There is no way to determine whether her race would have been any different had she been a man, just as it is hard to speculate whether a male district attorney running for Senate in 2005 would have an easier time explaining away his wife's infidelities and tax improprieties....

Excuse me -- is Levy nuts? Does he live on the same planet as the rest of us?

Let's talk just about the sexual scandal. The analogy would be a wife who cheated on her husband and had another man's baby. Is Levy seriously suggesting that this might not be a setback for her husband's political career?

Some voters would consider the wife a symbol of society's sexual decadence. Others would simply call her a slut. Still others would see her as an adulterer too incompetent to take precautions.

And then on top of that she's got a felony conviction for tax fraud?

And Levy thinks she might not be a liability for her husband?

Is every campaign reporter required to suspend all skepticism about Republican spin points?