Should be, but never will be. Even if an opposing candidate does not bring up any family matters, the media always will. A gonk is a gonk is a gonk. The "noble profession" of journalism is forgotten as soon as a little gonk graduates and gets hired by a major media corp. The only reason they aren't working for National Enquirer is because NE didn't have any openings at the time or they were offered a job closer to NYC or DC. I knew so many of these little people in college that I used to draw cartoons of them. They even used to print the cartoons in the school paper...until it dawned on them that they were the cartoons...(smile).

It should be but it hasn't been since John Quincey Adams.

it depends on the level I wouldn't want a first lady who was a criminal

The first amendment gives people the right to say what ever they want AS LONG as what they say does not hurt another person. People have the right to be offended, people these days equate having their feelings hurt to being physically harmed, this is not true. Nothing is out of bounds. If you want to have freedom of speech for yourself you also have to give it to the scum of the Earth even the Nazis who want to have a parade in a Jewish section of town.

I think so. But, the days of playing fair and by the Marquess of Queensberry rules is over.

I believe so .... The wife, Husband, and Children etc .... should NOT have to be made of the public spectacle in what we call politics thesedays .... Yes; we have the right to Free Speech ; BUT when that speech intrudes into others PRIVATE lives and offends, hurts , and humiliates them ... we are crossing the boundries ...

Todays Media are sharks and don't care about morals or fair play they do anything they can to get a story regardless who it hurts its all about ratings and not getting the facts anymore and if that means picking on the children of a politition so be it .

No..if you want to run the affairs of a nation then you put not only yourself in the spotlight, but your entire family not to mention almost all your friends as well. Don't like it? Don't run. As for small children they hardly count. A president or senator or whatever can say off limits, but if those children cross the line then they are no longer off limits either. Picking on Palins grandkids.. I know NOBODY who has picked on the babies, just their parents. Picking on a small baby will win nobody any brownie points and they sure won't be granted any further interviews. Sure, some idiots will want to hear that sort of drivel, but those "reporters" and media outlets do so at their own peril.

I think that the family members as long as they are not taking an active part in the campaign should be left alone, unless there is something criminal in nature that is going on.

Depends on how one defines "attack" actually. Yes, egregious and pointedly malicious "going after" a politician's family members should be considered out of bounds. The fact remains, though, that politicians are celebrities and you know how the American public (and not just Americans, really, but that's the only situation I can discuss knowledgeably) loves celebrity gossip. That being said: Reporting that Dick Cheney's anti-gay policies are ironic in light of his daughter's open lesbianism is not an attack. Reporting that Lynne Cheney's pulp novel has a torrid lesbian love scene is not an attack. Reporting that Todd Palin was under investigation for allegedly shady activities is not an attack. Reporting that Bristol Palin was pregnant out of wedlock was not an attack. Reporting on the Bush daughters' underage drinking and abuse of their Secret Service protection is not an attack. Reporting that Obama's aunt is in the U.S. illegally is not an attack. Calling Chelsea Clinton a "dog" *WAS* an attack.

yes. Families should be off limits.Espeically kids.

Yes. In a perfect world.

It depends how much the family inserts itself into politics. Chelsea Clinton and Meghan McCain aren't out of bounds because they do insert themselves into political discourse. (I think some things are out of bounds. Frequently those two women are attacked because of their looks, not because of their arguments. That's not right either. Some pinhead right-wing radio host named Laura Ingraham has been making fun of Meghan's weight, for instance.)

If the candidate's private actions contradict their public stance then yes it is fair game. If there is no constructive argument behind the comments then they shouldn't be made. The politician who preaches abstinence but has a pregnant teenage child, the politician who says conserve energy but lives in a huge energy sucking mansion, the anti-gay rights politician who has same sex relations or family members, the anti-immigration politician who has an illegal nanny or other staffer...these issues are fair game and worthy of mention in the public arena.

Depends on how you define attack. Defining a comedians poor joke as an "attack" is a stretch. Comedians are going to joke about anything they think will get a laugh. If you don't want comedians making jokes about your kids drug habits or promiscuity then, um, maybe you should address your kids drug habits and promiscuity. I also noticed that politicians like Palin have a habit of taking attacks on them that mention their children are twisted into being an attack on her children. Example: Palin was criticized for being such a strong opponent of sex education except for teaching abstinence. When her daughter got pregnant, people called HER on it because it obviously was not working in her on home. I did not see any of her opponents say anything disparaging about her daughter. It was all lumped on Palin and the hypocrisy of the right wing in general. I have seen right wing Christian politicians go on about the lack of morality but seem to find a glut of "forgiveness' phrases when it comes to the fact that they don't seem to be any more moral than anyone else. Palin likes to be an attention whore and then act like a victim when the spotlight she seeks reveals more than what she wanted revealed. When you are famous, the actions of those around you are going to come to light whether it is relevant or not. When those actions are directly tied to your policies , you cannot expect it to be ignored. If the drug czar's son is busted for meth, damn right comedians are going to have a field day. If the Grand Wizard of the KKK's daughter is doing interracial porn, there is no way that's being ignored.

Only if those particular family members keep their snouts out of the politician's business. Michelle told Obama to create a council for women and girls, to further endorse the myth that women are victims by default, all the while men and boys are ignored, they're far more likely to be the victim of violent attack, fall further behind in schools, make up 98% of the homeless, and 95% of work-related deaths are male, yet they're ignored while females are catered for, for these reasons and more, Michelle is a perfectly legitimate target to attack. His children are not however, they're not involved in his decisions like Michelle is, even though she hasn't received one American vote, so they're off bounds. Anyone who uses family members to get to someone else is the lowest of the low, and extremely low in intelligence, because it means they can't get to the original target, due to weakness and lack of intelligence, so attack others instead in the sad hope that it'll affect the original target. This does not just apply to politics, but in all areas of life.

Malicious & crude attacks Yes! Humorous one's No! Remember Billy Carter? What an f'n Nitwit! lol +5

Shoulds or not it's just not going to happen. The media is only too happy to report this garbage and a good share of the public does not expect or demend better. +5

out of bounds, no, but is it a bad political move to attack families, yes

They usually are. Or were, anyway.

If the politician wishes to include their family as part of the need to vote for them, then they're gonna have to accept that their families will be a media target.