I think Jon's spending a lot of energy making a bogus point. The choice the Palin's are probably referring to is whether to have the kid and raise it her self; marry the guy and raise the kid with him; or give it up for adoption. So no it's not hypocrisy to talk about her daughter's choice.

But that's beside the point. So Palin has extreme views on abortion. How does that mean it's okay to get into the salacious details of her daughter's life? I don't see how that illuminates the debate at all. This is the biggest trap the Democrats could walk into, finger wagging at Bristol Palin the way O'Reilly finger wags at Jamie Lynn Spears. The fact that it's about "hyposcrisy" rather than morality will be completely lost on a disgusted public.

I love it when Stewart slaps people without raising his hands. Stewart/Colbert '08

To my (pleasant) surprise, I just heard Conan in one of this week's shows, make this joke:

Vice Presidential candidate Sarah Palin has many views... she says she's opposed to same-sex marriage... yeah, Palin says "everyone knows marriage isn't for gay people; it's for pregnant teenagers".

Conan rarely gets so direct. I do think it's fair to say this stuff given her views on these kinds of subjects.

dende, this girl's pregnancy goes to the heart of the Republicans' moral values that they keep talking about. It is just like Chenney's gay daughter. The Republicans hate everything about gay life but somehow his daughter's life style is off limits because we must respect the privacy. It is all hypocracy. "I'll tell you how to run your life but please don't tell us how to live ours."

How do you know abortion was not one of the choices she considered? I know of someone who was pro-life and even marched in Washington with her church but when she became pregnant by a man she didn't love she made the decision to end it. It was not easy for her but at least she had a choice. So I don't believe Jon is off the mark here. If anything, he is pointing to the obvious which is the double standard of the Republican party.

"How do you know abortion was not one of the choices she considered?"

I don't know that, but I don't have any evidence that they did consider abortion, so I'm going on their stated moral views. You're assuming hypocrisy merely from the fact of taking a moral stand, without any evidence they've violated that same moral stand. I know there are Larry Craig types who live in a way that's the exact opposite of their stated public views, but I don't know people like that. Having the kid and giving it up for adoption seems pretty common to me.

"It is all hypocrisy. "I'll tell you how to run your life but please don't tell us how to live ours."

1) As for Cheney. He and his daughter are unsufferable. Only a daughter of a fiend like Cheney could argue that John Edwards saying the Cheneys love their daughter= Edwards saying the Cheneys don't love their daughter. But I don't think he's a hypocrite on gay issues. He personally was opposed to the marriage amendment. Besides, I have no idea how someone could somehow support gay marriage for their daughter and at the same time hope that gay marriage is banned in the country as a whole. With abortion I guess it's possible to take advantage of the license while it exists while at the same time take another position politically.

2) So what if it's hypocrisy? What does that mean? Does that mean that we should demand or be interested in the details about Bristol Palin's sex life and private decisions? That seems to be what Jon is saying but I don't see the point in that, especially for a pro-choice person who does believe that the person has a right to privacy. Inasmuch as the argument is valid (I still don't think it is) pro-privacy people invading people's privacy are just as hypocritical as pro-life people claiming a right to privacy.

dende -

This issue Sarah Palin and a goodly chuck of the GOP should be confronted on their her support of abstinence-only sex education. It doesn't work - and if Bristol Palin is the poster child for that, so be it. Sarah Palin was asked if she would serve on the ticket, with the full knowledge that her daughter was pregnant. She could have said "No" and should have said No for this and many other reasons - and if John McCain's camp doesn't like it, then they should have made the offer to a candidate with some kind of reasonable qualifications.