Donald Trump promises to be “as presidential as he wants to be” upon being elected. He states “I will be VERY good for women” so many times, we think he’s trying to convince himself. From the multitude of remarks on his television show The Apprentice to quips about menstrual cycles affecting women’s moods, attacks against Carly Fiorina to the size of his manhood (a visual most of us women could have done without), Trump has taken the 2016 Presidential race and put it in a category of its own. Welcome to junior high.

But when, just when, is enough…enough? It all started with this photo posted by Make America Awesome:

Make America Awesome, a SuperPAC led by Liz Mair has not come out and endorsed any particular candidate nor was Ted Cruz behind the posting. But, Donald thought he was and fired back:

What was Trump going to “spill the beans” about? The first “bean”, if you will, was Cruz’s affiliation with Goldman Sachs and the Council on Foreign Relations. Cruz was drafted as a ‘term member‘ to participate in an independent task force report, titled North America: Time for a New Focus. However, her only contribution and stance appears in the following appendix of the 2005 White Paper for the council, entitled “Building a North American Community”:

“We must emphasize the imperative that economic investment be led and perpetuated by the private sector. There is no force proven like the market for aligning incentives, sourcing capital, and producing results like financial markets and profit-making businesses. This is simply necessary to sustain a higher living standard for the poorest among us — truly the measure of our success. As such, investment funds and financing mechanisms should be deemed attractive instruments by those committing the capital and should only be developed in conjunction with market participants.”

Let’s take a look at Heidi Cruz for a moment. A good, hard look:

Heidi’s educational pedigree vastly outshines Donald Trump’s and includes: an M.B.A. from Harvard Business School, a B.A. in Economics and International Relations from Claremont McKenna College, and a Masters from the Universite Libre de Bruxelles in Brussels, Belgium.

Heidi was Phi Beta Kappa at Claremont and won a Rotary Scholarship and studied in Strasbourg, France. Her graduate thesis topic, “Exchange Rate Theories in Eastern Europe”, won the Economic prize for “Best Thesis”.

Ms. Cruz, soon began focusing her professional career in investment banking, specializing in energy securities, structuring mergers and acquisitions in that market sector. Her first job was at J.P. Morgan as an economic expert in Latin American Emerging Markets. Following this, she returned to Harvard to acquire the MBA.-Richard Cameron, Conservative Push.

Hmm. What was Donald doing at this time? “Taking classes at Wharton college”. There is no mention of an MBA or academic honors while he was taking said classes. The other “bean”, Trump was threatening to spill? A bout of depression Mrs. Cruz faced in 2005.

“About a decade ago, when Mrs. Cruz returned from D.C. to Texas and faced a significant professional transition, she experienced a brief bout of depression. Like millions of Americans, she came through that struggle with prayer, Christian counseling, and the love and support of her husband and family.”-Jason Miller, member of Senator Ted Cruz Staff

And we see yet more promises to “be very good for women”:

"@pattiandsammi: @gullakhta99 @realDonaldTrump @Tytan01 @CNN WOMEN LOVE TRUMP. TRUMP'S EXECS PREDOMINANTLY FEMALE. #WOMEN4TRUMP"

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) March 26, 2016

We won’t get into the semantics of Heidi versus Melania. We have two VERY different women here from two VERY different walks of life and yes, two VERY different husbands. Heidi Cruz’s bout with depression is common with women who are making a lifestyle change. I know because I, like many women, have been there, done that. Is there a fine line between dirty politics and plain, old, unnecessary sludge? Attacking prior affiliations with organizations could be considered par for the course in the race for a presidency but attacking an individual’s spouse because of outward appearances and a bout of depression reaches deep into the abyss. The question that begs us is how. How is it appropriate and “presidential” to tear down a rival’s spouse? How is it appropriate for a man to tear down another man’s spouse in any arena? Would any given father be willing to let another man treat his daughter this way? And, speaking of that, we won’t even go into what Donald Trump once said about his own daughter. What makes this acceptable? Clearly, this is not what some women want and, (while I hate to say this) what I speculate would be the catalyst that may drive some (not us here) to vote for Hillary Clinton. I can’t imagine this is what most men want, either. Trump and Cruz going tête-à-tête is one thing. But if tearing down someone’s spouse defines power, character, integrity and masculinity, Trump and America as a whole has a lot more issues than the sheer size of his hands.