Who's more guilty? ...

Blago or ex-Senator Norm Coleman? (Oh, that feels so good to say.) TNR's Jonathan Chait drops some knowledge:

In Coleman's defense, he's currently just a subject of an FBI investigation, while Blagojevich has been voted out of office. And, of course, Coleman hasn't been caught boasting about his scheme. On the other hand, Coleman is accused by a Houston businessman of having actually accepted illicit funds, while Blagojevich is merely being accused of harboring an intention to sell his Senate seat.
[. . .]
But, of course, this is just my point: These scandals are as much a function of perception and mass psychology as anything to do with the underlying merits. Coleman benefited from his race against Al Franken, whose very candidacy struck many people as a joke (unfairly, I think). Coleman, a pro-Bush Republican running in a blue state, based his campaign on Franken's characterological unfitness for office and managed to acquire the trappings of the good-government candidate.

Nobody is defending Rod Blagojevich. But why do others like Mr Coleman, who are inarguably just as guilty (or moreso), remain unscathed by media and political apparatuses? Perhaps it is just the unfairness of disparities in context and so on. Or perhaps it is only a matter of time before we get to see old Norm led out of his house, handcuffed, in front of the cameras. After all he's done for himself at the expense of Minnesotans, one can only hope for such an outcome.