It’s become a political mantra of both the left and right, “FAMILIES ARE OFF-LIMITS.”

Barack Obama, “I think that it is an example of the erosion of civility in our political culture the she’s [Michelle Obama] been subject to these attacks.”

Hillary Clinton, “”I became Chelsea’s mother long before I ran for any office, and I will always be a mom first and a public official second. Nothing justifies the kind of debasing language that David Shuster used.”

Sarah Palin: “We ask the media to respect our daughter and Levi’s privacy as has always been the tradition of children of candidates.”

But just because they all say it doesn’t make it true. And, more to the point, do the candidates themselves offer their children the kind of protection that they ask the media to afford them. As a husband and father myself, I sympathize with the candidates when they speak out in support of their families. And that’s why they do it. It’s a calculated and largely cynical attempt to gain our sympathy. In reality, there are limits on the amount of privacy the families of political candidates should enjoy. And those limits are in large part determined by the actions of the candidates themselves.

Take my wife, please

Let’s begin with the easiest subject to tackle, the candidate’s spouse. At least since Edith Wilson and Eleanor Roosevelt (and more realistically since Abigail Adams and Dolly Madison), presidential spouses have played a major political role. Don’t we, and our surrogates in the media, have a right – even responsibility – to examine the person behind the most important relationship in a candidate’s life? Moreover, political spouses have become campaign surrogates. They attend events, make speeches and appear at conventions. If the candidates are going to be thrust their spouses before the country and the national media, should the candidate be allowed to dictate the terms? I don’t think so.

Bottom line: Whatever a candidate’s spouse says or does is fair game. And when Michelle Obama said she was proud of America for “the first time” in her adult life, she got what she deserved.

Shocked I say, shocked!

One of the not so subtle messages of Hillary Clinton’s failed campaign was her role as a mother.  To emphasize that, her daughter was by here side constantly and, when Chelsea wasn’t with her mother, she was making campaign appearances for her. Still when Chelsea faced tough questions about her father’s philandering, the Clinton’s were quick to claim such questions were off-limits. More to the point when a commentator accused Senator Clinton of politically “pimping out” her daughter – a crude but not necessarily inaccurate turn of phrase – she was quick to fire up the “vast right-wing conspiracy” rhetoric. But who, given their experience, is more aware than the Clintons of how hostile and personal the media can be.  Don’t they deserve some of the blame for putting Chelsea in a position to be the target of such abuse? And isn’t it a bit disingenuous for them to claim to be shocked when it happens?

Bottom line: If you want to keep your kids from being a target, keep them off the firing line.

No, not that kid

It’s suddenly popular for politicians to mention – as both Joe Biden and Sarah Palin did to great applause – that their offspring are serving in armed forces. I assume the purpose is to illustrate patriotism and emphasize how they understand the costs our troops are paying. But, if a politician can use one offspring to benefit their campaign, isn’t it fair for their opposition to point to their other children whose life stories are perhaps less uplifting?

Bottom line: In the media’s eye all your children are equal. If you want to keep one out of the spotlight, keep them all in the shadows.

Is your daughter putting on weight?

Which brings us to Sarah Palin’s pregnant daughter. Surely Bristol, whatever mistakes she may have made, doesn’t deserve to be splashed across TV screens and ridiculed by comics. But she doesn’t deserve to be used as a political tool by the right wing of the Republican Party either. Surely Sarah Palin knew what she was setting her daughter up for when she accepted John McCain’s offer to be his running mate.

It’s not easy to hide a pregnancy, especially when you use your family as the backdrop for your introduction to the national electorate. In my mind, it’s a bit hypocritical to ask people to respect Bristol’s privacy while using her as a political prop. And, if I had any doubts about Governor Palin and the Republican Party’s willingness to try to manipulate the pregnancy for political purposes, they vanished when the baby’s father was yanked out of Alaska and flown in for a guest appearance at the Republican convention.

Still, even if we accept the argument that Bristol is off-limits, don’t we have the right to question those who exploit the situation – whether their purpose is to harm Palin’s candidacy or to help it? And, given the fact that family is such an important theme in this election shouldn’t we be allowed to ask Governor Palin a few questions related to it? Namely:

“Does your daughter’s pregnancy make you question your past support for abstinence only education?”

“Given that your daughter was sexually active, do you wish she had used birth control?”

Bottom line: Don’t put your kids out front and then expect to hide behind their privacy to avoid the tough questions I have no doubt that the current presidential and vice-presidential candidates love their families.  But, given the realities of the current campaign, I also believe that also view their families as political tools to be used to advance their agenda when possible and to be “protected” (a bit hypocritically) when they become a liability. After all, playing the outraged spouse or parent is always good political theater.

Heck, even I have a tough time not falling for it.