Fortunately, though, Wade left us his email address:
Update: Looking at it again, perhaps I've been a little harsh. My interpretation of Wade's article as being apologetic hinges on this sentence:
To paraphrase one commenter, Kinder's behavior -- "slime-ball" but legal -- appears to have gotten far harsher treatment than the "slime-ball" illegal behavior of Democratic U.S. Sen. Claire McCaskill.
Now, I think in normal usage if I say something like, "It's a rough year to be a Cardinals fan. To paraphrase Gordon, they're soft at third base," then most people would understand me as agreeing that the Cardinals are soft at third base. Thus, I read the quoted sentence as suggesting that the editor agreed with the commenter. However, applying the principal of charity, I believe that sentence might also be interpreted as "One commenter said Kinder got harsher treatment." So I think the best way to read the post is probably as simply asking a question, rather than as agreeing with the right-wing comment brigade. Now I personally believe that the Post-Dispatch should stand up for Jake Wagman's reporting on Kinder rather than meekly asking a question; but, given the current reporting ethos of balance-as-getting-quotes-from-both-sides-rather-than-standing-up-for-the-facts, I can see why they'd be hesitant to do so.