I guess it depends on whether a person thinks there should be limits established in these campaigns.There was an article in USA today which discussed this, talking about the issue of political spouses for example:

"In Mrs. Obama's case, she is an acocmplished professional who has campaigned vigorously on her husband's behalf. If the Obamas seek the benefits of having her do so, they must be willing to accept the scrutiny that her words - and gaffes - attract. This is not to say that all criticisms of spouses are fair. The Tennessee GOP critique of Michelle Obama based on one line in February about being proud of her country - (taken out of context) - she later said she meant that she was proud of the political process for the first time - is at best, a manipulative effort to suggest that the Obamas are unpatriotic or ungrateful.

In Mrs. McCain's case, her vast wealth raises legitimate questions about potential conflicts of interest and how she could be indirectly aiding his campaign through such practices as allwoing him the use of her company's jet. For her, the issue is less a personal attack than it is a criticism of her secrecy on money issues. Her situation is similar to that of Teresa Heinz Kerry, who eventually agreed to release a portion of her tax forms. In both cases, the imperatives of ensuring open and honest government trump the privacy desires of candidate spouses. .......Like it or not, spouses have become an important part of the process. They do not deserve to be dragged into the mud. But nor are they entitled to blanket immunity."

I think any reasonable person can see that some things "talked about" are really smears, thinly veiled attempts to distort the issues to bring a candidate down into the mud, while other things are an important part of the political process.