Media Double Standard?

Think quick: What's the difference between Kitty Kelly (search) and Edward Klein? (search)

Kitty can get on TV shows to talk about her books. Ed's having a devil of a time doing the same with his.

Double standard? I don't know. Here's what I do know: Kitty wasted no time dishing dirt and worse on the president in her bestseller "The Family: The Real Story of the Bush Dynasty."

Klein's dishing dirt too. Not on the Bushes, but the Clintons — more specifically, Hillary Clinton, in "The Truth About Hillary."

Both books are way over the top — wild accusations and lots of un-named sources.

But here's the difference: Kitty got booked on shows. Ed is getting no bookings, period.

Kitty's book came out in the heat of last year's presidential election. Ed's is poised right before Hillary's Senate re-election.

Could it be the media relished dirt on the president, less so on the woman who wants to be president?

Who knows? All I know is if it's OK for Kitty to make outlandish claims on TV news and talk shows about the Bush family, why is it not OK for Ed to dish out the same about the Clinton family?

We're told it's because of lots of un-named sources — there's no way to tell and no way to know.

I say, good. But I also say, stop.

Why is it OK to dump on one family with un-sourced dirt, but not on another?

I think the American people are smart enough to weigh these sort of things carefully.

They apparently had serious doubts about the stuff Kitty littered — they probably have the same thoughts about Ed's dreads.

I frankly hate these kind of personal — often baseless — nameless attacks anyway. I say a pox on both their editorial houses.

It's just interesting to me that Ed can't find a microphone for his musings on a media darling. But Kelly had no such problem for hers on someone who was anything but a media darling.

Watch Neil Cavuto weekdays at 4 p.m. ET on "Your World with Cavuto" and send your comments to