When audio was released of Bristol Palin’s now-infamous police interview after the “drunken brawl” she was involved in at a birthday party, something finally had to be said.

In the audio, Bristol cursed repeatedly — so much so that the “bleep” censor sound that most news outlets used to keep the clip from offending their audiences ran for long, uninterrupted flatline seconds. An anchor for CNN was quite amused by it, particularly the long bleeps, and ended up having to apologize for thinking it was funny.

Sarah Palin popped up on Fox Business Network to declare that her family was under attack because people thought Bristol’s rant was funny.

“The bottom line of course is those liberals … they are out there playing the politics of personal destruction. They do want to destroy personally those they disagree with. They’re very, very intolerant of those who maybe hold opposing views to their liberal failed agenda views. So, you know, they want to crush us.”

And Bristol took to her own blog to similarly declare the whole thing proof that The Media has a “bias against conservative women.”

After describing the events of the “brawl” as she saw and experienced them, Bristol Palin asked a very important question:

Why does the media still choose to put the Palins into an entirely different category of people?

She went on to compare the reporting the “brawl”, and particularly about her audio, to other high-profile political families and their children.

“Did you even hear about Vice President Joe Biden’s adult son who kicked out of the Navy for cocaine? (That’s the real Vice President’s kid…) So pause for a moment and consider the hysteria over our stupid ‘incident’, compared to our actual Vice President’s son not even being able to hold on to a position in the Navy Reserve.

“In the meantime, I was pushed and held down by some guy… and the media salivates like a dog that’s just been given a bone.”

Here’s the problem: What Bristol is doing is making a false equivalency. First of all, Hunter Biden’s discharge was reported widely. But he didn’t go on a cursing rant about it — at least not one that got captured on audio.

But Chelsea Clinton? That was a startling comparison to make, and likely not one that Bristol thought through very well. She went on to compare her situation to a theoretical Chelsea situation.

“Imagine for a second the outrage that would happen if Chelsea Clinton had gotten pushed by some guy. Had she tried to defend herself, the liberal media would’ve held her up as some feminist hero.

“But it wasn’t Chelsea.”

Columnist Nell Scovell has taken Bristol’s line of logic seriously. She does a side-by-side comparison of the kinds of things both Bristol and Chelsea have said in the past few months. The result is an obvious contrast in the kind of person each young woman presents herself to be to the world.

Chelsea Clinton would never have marched into a party, ready to pick a fight over some issue. Chelsea Clinton would never have cursed a blue streak at a police officer who was trying to find out who hurt her. Chelsea Clinton has had a life of high-profile privilege, sure. And she is parlaying that into a career, family, and respect.

Bristol Palin very likely is a nice woman who loves and does her best for her child. But she believes that people laugh at her because of her politics. All anyone really pays attention to are the long censor bleeps, the salacious news of brawls, and the ridiculousness of her mom’s response.