Now that's not to say that the attacks on Bill have all been fair… I'm just saying that given Bill's influence, star attraction, power and campaign experience (including his creative definitions) that it's necessary to treat him as the co-President he will surely be. Michelle may influence Obama's thinking but will nonetheless first and foremost be a First Lady.

I have to agree though that this could cause a backlash on Cindy McCain- and although the same principle should apply (anything she says in campaign speeches should be fair game, but not her personal life), there's no doubt that people would use other things against her as well.

As far as Corker's stance is concerned: I don't know enough about him or his politics to speculate about his motives. Perhaps he does see the peril that Cindy McCain brings to her husband and Corker is being preemptive, hoping to head off attacks on Cindy before those attacks harm her husband's chances.

By today's political rules there isn't any argument that she's “fair game”. The problem occurs due to the fact that the majority of the country is sick of today's political rules – it is sad that both parties spend money attacking their opponents, but when they have to stoop to attacking that candidate's wife, mother, father, kids, or whoever it is tremendously distasteful, and made even moreso when the subject's words are distorted.

If that argument seems unreasonable, consider for a moment whether it would seem distasteful to see an ad attacking the current first lady, or if there had been an ad attacking Nancy Reagan. They both campaigned for their husbands, and I'm sure they both said some things that could be used for attacks, but any such attacks would have seemed totally distasteful. The argument that things are somehow different with Obama's wife is a tough one to buy.

But they just can't help themselves, can they? It's how they roll.