There is still controversy. It is true that many of the objections have been exposed as political maneuvering, and many of the objectors, themselves, have been exposed as hypocrites. I’m not here to defend any of the specific objectors or countenance their reasons for objecting. Taking the conversation in that direction (which, unfortunately, this article did) is an act of ad hominem, and logically invalid.

Ergo, the objection still stands. I think there are perfectly valid reasons for objecting to or being accepting of Bernie Sanders as the opening speaker for this event, and any individual woman who feels one way or the other is obviously perfectly entitled to that belief and doesn’t have to be harboring some nefarious motive to hold the opinion she has. It is unfortunate this article made no intellectually honest attempt at addressing the question itself. Would, for instance, Tulsi Gabbard (assuming she would be interested) have been a better or worse choice?

Regardless of our speculation or arguments on the matter, though, enough of the organizers thought it was a good idea to have Sanders open the event that it is happening.