His problem is not that he misspoke or believed, nor is it in the relative cynicism of any party’s response. It is quite simply that he frames the issue in a way—the way that it is framed above—that does not ring true with respect to the empirical reality involved or to any woman, and women make up half the electorate. His further problem is that as a public figure in the particular context of the moment, he had and has a greater responsibility than all but very few to frame carefully, to think and reflect deeply, and to found his speech on acts of research and judgment equal to their potential effects.

That he did none of these and others responded swiftly isn’t a matter of personal indictment or even (to my eye) cynicism, but an acknowledgment of this failure. That he failed here doesn’t make him (as some on Facebook might suggest) ineligible to live or to speak as a citizen, but it certainly does (and ought to) make him ineligible to govern, at least to the eyes of this citizen. But of course the final determination will be made by the respective voting body at issue.