It was unnecessary, as it clearly detracted from some otherwise good points Sanders was making about Clinton's record. And it played into the old attacks that female candidates have had to repeatedly face over the years.
We know women have to jump through hoops to do well at the polls -- be qualified, likable, warm, strong, competent, compassionate, polished but not too pretty -- and the list goes on. Time and again, we see women up for the challenge.
Today, as women represent more than 50 percent of the population, and after more than 90 years of having the right to vote, why are we not seeing an increasing number of women in politics, either running for office or in policy making?
Our country's inability to elect women to the highest or even second-highest office in the land begs the uncomfortable question: if women are the majority of American voters, then does the blame for the dearth of women leaders lie with women voters?
While Peron and Palin's political rise and ideological persuasions are as different as the North and South Poles, their similarities as leaders are striking. Their styles are populist, plain and simple.
Since 81% of Americans believe that individuals should have control over their own important life decisions, Palin's staunchly anti-choice beliefs are in direct contradiction of the majority of not just her party, but everyone.