HOW is Sarah Palin's claimed "thanks, but no thanks" opposition to the "bridge to nowhere" any different from Hillary Clinton's account of dodging bullets in Bosnia? The answer: the press coverage. Over on his blog, James Fallows is comparing the two falsehoods and wondering why the press relentlessly pointed out the speciousness of Mrs Clinton's story, while it considers Ms Palin's claim a "controversy". "In Governor Palin's case, the more often she has repeated the story, the more abashed the press has seemed about pointing out its falsity," says Mr Fallows. The exact opposite was true in Mrs Clinton's case. Will it take a video of Ms Palin poring over blueprints of the bridge (perhaps with Sinbad at her side) before the mainstream press gives her equal treatment?

Update: One possible benefit of all this is that it appears to be close to making Paul Begala's head explode.

Update II: I expected some pushback in comments on whether or not Ms Palin's statement is a falsehood, so let me explain how I see it. What is true is that once Congress declined to specifically fund the bridge to nowhere, Ms Palin opposed going ahead with it using state funds. Bravo. But in her speeches she says, "I told the Congress 'thanks, but no thanks,' for that Bridge to Nowhere." That's simply not true. When Congressional funding for the bridge was on the table, as Ms Palin campaigned for governor, she supported it. So, as Mr Fallows writes, it might be more accurate for her to say, "I said 'Yes, please!' until the Congress said 'Sorry, no.'"