kane

This is the standard response a lot of people (mostly republican) are making. Here is my question: First, she has made herself into a public person. She has done dozens of interviews for TV and print. This right from the Wiki: "In 2009 she worked with the National Campaign to Prevent Teen and Unplanned Pregnancy to ask teens to abstain from having sex." So if abstinence didn't work for her, but she is out preaching the virtues of it, should she not then be available for criticism?

Second, what age is appropriate? At 18 years old you are considered old enough to vote and decide what direction the country should take. You are old enough to choose to smoke if you wish. If you commit a crime you will be considered and tried for that crime as an adult. You are old enough to join the Army and fight (potentially die) for the country. You are old enough to be in charge of your own finances and if you screw up and run up a bunch of debt that you can't pay, they don't just say, "Well, she is only 18, close enough to still being a kid, we will let this one slide." So you are old enough for all of these things, yet not old enough to take criticism for something you have taken a public stance on? If not 18 then when?

If she had never taken any public stance I would agree with most people that she is off limits. She had limited control over the fact that her mom ran her out there like a dog and pony show during the election, but when the election was over she very well could have just asked for her privacy and gone back into obscurity. If that had been the case I would say she should be left alone and jokes about her should be off limits. But she chose to take a public stance and make herself into a public figure. If you are going to stand in front of people and tell them what you think they should do then you need to be ready for people who don' agree with you to voice that criticism.