Your moral equivalence argument that Sarah Palin (or any Pol) must be 'pure' to lead is a strawman. No one will ever meet your ideals...but that is the point...its always someone else's fault that they weren't good enough...not that you look at the big picture of where that candidate stands on true political issues not their private lives.
When Bristol Palin went on national television to declare that abstinence “isn’t realistic at all,” her attitude towards premarital sex became everyone’s business.
I will, once again, repeat myself that I don’t blame Sarah Palin for Bristol’s moral inanity, but that Sarah has, by her own acknowledgement been damaged as a spokesperson for abstinence by Bristol’s behaviour. Noting that she isn’t perfect isn’t a demand for perfection.
Do Palin’s defenders here really believe in abstinence themselves as anything more than an absurd ideal that no one actually attains in reality? I have to wonder, because no one here seems to actually believe that it is fair to suggest that Bristol has done or is doing anything deserving of public disapproval.