Whataboutism

Merriam-Webster has an brief discussion of this term “Whataboutism” here, it has gained increasing popularity as a tool in modern political discussion as a means to deflect criticism by bringing up an equally egregious wrong on the part of the accuser.  It is an especially useful tool in propaganda, and after all isn’t that what modern political debate has really become?
Wikipedia describes it as a “tu quoque” logical fallacy that pushes back against the opponent as being hypocritical rather than addressing the critic with a logical response.
Merriam-Webster defines tu quoque as “a retort charging an adversary with being or doing what he criticizes in others.”
In reflecting back on my writing, I know I am guilty of employing this as a basis for my criticism of many of the movements on the left, but does the fact it is a logical fallacy really mean the criticism is not valid and true?
I don’t think so, it just makes it easier for the people who disagree with the criticism to brush it off.
Let’s take a case in point.  If I point out the hypocrisy of one sides angst about the candidate from the other side’s social behavior, yet acceptance of similar transgressions on the part of their own candidates am I guilty of whataboutism?  I am not defending either side here, I am just remarking on the double standard.  It doesn’t feel like whataboutism to me, but then again, I am not that into the logic branch of philosophy.