I'm not always a fan of Jon Friedman - usually he's a little blowhardy and/or simplistic - but in suggesting that Sarah Palin's kids have been treated differently (and unfairly) by the media as compared to the Obama girls, he's not completely off-base:
<blockquote>Sarah Palin, who frequently criticized the press corps during the presidential campaign last fall, has another gripe about the media... This time, there is a twist. She has a leg to stand on.</blockquote>
Friedman argues, and I agree with him, that Palin has certainly given her critics and the media more than enough ammo for years of ridicule, and that <em>if reporters want to disparage Palin for what she said on the 2008 campaign trail and afterward, that's acceptable. She is fair game, as a public figure. But yes, let's leave her children (not to mention her newborn grandchild) out of it.</a>
At first glance, fair enough, I have no problem with that. Except... Bristol Palin sold out. And as Lindsay Lohan might tell you in a rare moment of sober introspection, when you become a celebrity then you've given the media the right to say or do whatever they want. And when you sell the rights to your baby's first-look photos for $300,000, then you have willingly entered into celebrity-hood. I do hope that little Tripp is able to recover from the double-whammy of being
condemned to eternal hellfire and damnation born out of wedlock and having such an... awkward name, but McCain's almost VP doesn't have much of a claim of "privacy" for Bristol.