This story reminded me of something I hadn't thought about in quite awhile: the 1984 presidential election. Geraldine Ferraro was the vice-presidential candidate on the Democratic ticket, running with Walter Mondale. That summer, I clerked in Houston, back in the day when the Houston Post still existed. The paper published a letter to the editor that stated three reasons why the writer would not be voting for Ferraro, all essentially because she was a woman, made worse by the fact that she didn't even use her husband's last name!

I hope that as a country, enough people have progressed beyond the close-minded "reasoning" of that writer more than 20 years ago such that Hillary Clinton will be judged on the merits, but sometimes I have my doubts. There is plenty of evidence about Hillary Clinton's negatives, and enough people have told me that they will not vote for her. I'm fine with that--I'm not sure that I'll vote for her in the primary. What bothers me, though, is how many people are unable to articulate a reason for their opposition. I've rarely heard that they think she's unqualified or that there is a better candidate for the job or that she voted the wrong way on the war. I have heard often enough that she's so ambitious, or that she's cold, or that she stayed with her cheating husband (like the majority of married women who suffer infidelity) or other reasons that seem to suggest a double standard.

I'm listening and reading before I decide who'll get my primary vote. If I vote for someone other than Hillary, it won't be because she was the wrong gender.