As for Sarah Palin, it was entirely wrong of Kos (edit. of anonymous posters to Kos) to assert anything about the parentage of her youngest child without copper-bottomed proof, far better than a few photos of Palin looking quite trim when (presumably) pregnant. (It was wrong because it is wrong to risk without being absolutely certain of your facts any charge that the Republican media machine can represent as sexist, however hypocritically or illegitimately.)
This is especially so when one notes that in any case, Sarah Palin is not only a liar in the sense that most Republicans elected to high office are liars, but a proven liar in the matter of the constructive dismissal of the man who did not fire her brother-in-law. Once we know that she is a liar, and a proven liar, particular instances of her lies do not render her any less unfit for the Vice-Presidency - according to the standards whereby a President was recently impeached.
However, if her reaction to going into premature labour was to get on a plane and fly for eight hours, and then drive to a favoured hospital some considerable way from the airport where she disembarked, it is legitimate to note that most right-to-lifers take a rather more robust attitude towards reckless endangerment of fetuses at the point when they are about to become babies. We have been told at great length that she knew that her son had Downs Syndrome, and, at the point when her waters started to break, that he was being born a month or so prematurely - we are also told that the reason for risking his and her health by flying home to Alaska was to ensure that he not be born in another state -surely a frivolous reason given that other right-to-lifers have prosecuted women for taking drink or drugs when pregnant, or at least argued for this.
I don't think that it is in any way wrong to hold Sarah Palin accountable to the same level of standards to which she would hold other people.