Would it be fair to ask Palin...? (some historical perspective)?

Back in the 1980 election, after the Willie Horton debacle hit the news, Dukakis was asked what he would do with the killer if his wife were raped and murdered, his answer pretty much sunk his campaign (well, was one of the things which did).

Given the current circumstances with Palin's daughter, would it be fair to ask Palin, "If your daughter were raped and impregnated by a serial-rapist who had AIDS, would you force her to bear the child?"?

I certainly hope nothing like that would ever happen to her, or anyone else, but given the current state of political discourse, and the absolute level of mud and slime we've sunk to, would that kind of question be considered "out of bounds"?

When the Presidential campaign is presented as info-tainment, and people feel the need to comment on every single aspect of the candidates' personal lives, is there truly a line that should be drawn, and if so, where?

What do you think?

Let me add, I think any questions about a candidates family, especially their children, should be "out of bounds" in every circumstance. I'm just wondering if anyone thinks that a candidate's family life is "fair game" if it points to their religious or political convictions.

I guess that depends on the candidates themselves. If they put their family on display, use them in ads and send them out to campaign, then they are fair game.
If instead a candidate keeps his/her family in the background, then they should be left alone.
Considering that Palin held a press conference with her pregnant daughter to announce to the world what was going on, then it would be a fair question to ask. Had Palin just kept it private, then we should respect that privacy.

When it came to Michelle Obama, all you people could say is "If you can't take the heat...."

free country