One often hears complaints about mudslinging in campaigns, and an excessive focus on personal missteps rather than policy differences. My impression has been that the special election in Massachusetts has been unusually focused on the latter. And that’s a very good thing. The narrative about Bush-Rove hardball tactics is still invoked, as is the canard about the supposed insanity of people like me who think that government spending should be sustainable. Yet there is overwhelming evidence that the Brown campaign has spent very little time raising legitimate questions about Coakley’s judgment based on her record, sensing, perhaps, that it’s best to focus on pressing national issues.

Consider this in the context of Keith Olbermann’s colorful description of Scott Brown.

“In short, in Scott Brown we have an irresponsible, homophobic, racist, reactionary, ex-nude model, teabagging supporter of violence against woman and against politicians with whom he disagrees. In any other time in our history, this man would have been laughed off the stage as an unqualified and a disaster in the making by the most conservative of conservatives. Instead, the commonwealth of Massachusetts is close to sending this bad joke to the Senate of the United States.”

Given that a far more effective line of criticism against Brown is that he is too soft on taxing and spending — more effective because it reflects reality — the “reactionary” line is puzzling. By now, I suppose the use of crude sexual innuendo is a commonplace on Olbermann’s program, so that shouldn’t come as a surprise. The homophobic line is presumably in reference to a Brown blunder, when he foolishly said that the following.

Mr. Brown narrowly won his State Senate seat in 2004 in a special election when his predecessor, Cheryl Jacques, left to become president of the Human Rights Campaign. Three years earlier, he had enraged gay rights activists by saying that it was “not normal” for Ms. Jacques, who is a lesbian, to have a baby with her partner.

That’s from a Liz Robbins profile in the New York Times, paired with a profile of Martha Coakley. Matt Welch has characterized the twin profiles as a clear example of media bias.

I won’t necessarily go as far as Welch. But consider this: Robbins mentions the Brown remark, and that he opposes same-sex marriage. She did not, however, mention that Brown is a supporter of civil unions, which is salient information.

And in the Robbins profile of Coakley, she fails to even glancingly mention the greatest political challenge Coakley has faced to date, vividly described by Michael Rezendes in the Times’ sister newspaper, the Boston Globe.

In October 2005, a Somerville police officer living in Melrose raped his 23-month-old niece with a hot object, most likely a curling iron.
Keith Winfield, then 31, told police he was alone with the toddler that day and made additional statements that would ultimately be used to convict him.
But in the aftermath of the crime, a Middlesex County grand jury overseen by Martha Coakley, then the district attorney, investigated without taking action.
It was only after the toddler’s mother filed applications for criminal complaints that Coakley won grand jury indictments charging rape and assault and battery.
Even then, nearly 10 months after the crime, Coakley’s office recommended that Winfield be released on personal recognizance, with no cash bail. He remained free until December 2007, when Coakley’s successor as district attorney won a conviction and two life terms.

This prompted the late Larry Frisoli, a Cambridge attorney who has represented families in sex abuse cases, to run against Coakley as a Republican. Rezendes is very fair to Coakley in the story, and she defended her actions in the case:

Coakley pointed out that Winfield had no prior convictions, had deep roots in his community, and had appeared voluntarily at his arraignment after a 10-month investigation, leaving her office with scant reason to ask for cash bail and little reason to believe that a judge would order it.

Yet doesn’t this seem at least a little relevant to a profile concerning Coakley’s record as attorney general? It was, again, the last time she faced a serious challenge. Does this seem as important as a boneheaded remark that Brown made in a state senate campaign?

P.S. I clearly wrote too soon. Looks like Brown’s opponents have found a misstep that they can exploit.