In the past Repubs have had no problem with attacking the children of their opponents for any reason or no reason. However, they complain loudly when Palin's opponents point to her hypocrisy when she parades her pregnant unwed daughter onstage during rallies and speeches while at the same time decrying any mention of her by opponents. If she wants her family and children off limits then she shouldn't be using them as props. And no one has even asked the question as to why a mother would subject her pregnant child to the scrutiny that results from a hardball presidential campaign.

Her daughter is relevant because Repubs have made her so by their double standard policies. When a political party denigrates anyone who has an unwed pregnancy while at the same time promoting policies that deny birth control, sex ed, prenatal care, child care etc., and then find themselves in the same boat as those they criticize/penalize then their hypocrisy should be pointed out. This is not the same as attacking the child as Repubs do and like McCain did when he said that Chelsea Clinton was ugly because Janet Reno was her father.

Below is an excerpt of an article written by a National Review editor about Chelsea Clinton, who had done nothing to deserve the hate. I can find articles like it all over the net about other children of Democrats as well but it serves the purpose of exposing the hatred and hypocrisy of Republicans who now cry croc tears about the legitimate argument that Bristol Palin is a living example of Repub hypocrisy and how Repub policies fail. The Palin's solution, which is little more than a shotgun wedding for 2 teens, is statistically doomed to failure as well.

From the National Review (link follows). It's still up on their site.
"Chelsea is a Clinton. She bears the taint; and though not prosecutable in law, in custom and nature the taint cannot be ignored. All the great despotisms of the past — I'm not arguing for despotism as a principle, but they sure knew how to deal with potential trouble — recognized that the families of objectionable citizens were a continuing threat. In Stalin's penal code it was a crime to be the wife or child of an "enemy of the people". The Nazis used the same principle, which they called Sippenhaft, "clan liability". In Imperial China, enemies of the state were punished "to the ninth degree": that is, everyone in the offender's own generation would be killed, and everyone related via four generations up, to the great-great-grandparents, and four generations down, to the great-great-grandchildren, would also be killed. (This sounds complicated, but in practice what usually happened was that a battalion of soldiers was sent to the offender's home town, where they killed everyone they could find, on the principle neca eos omnes, deus suos agnoscet — "let God sort 'em out".)"
http://www.nationalreview.com/derbyshire/derbyshire021501.shtml

Craig Rhodes