Yeah, because there's no way that the lingering resentment of the Democratic base could be because of, I don't know, the fact that she's the most conservative demicrat running for the Presidency?

Of course not! It has to be sexism! After all, everyone knows only evil people don't like HRC.

Given that huge majorities of Democrats have gotten high at some point in their lives, this strategy makes no sense to me. "Don't vote for Obama, he got high and then quit and made something of himself!" Yeah, wouldn't want that, now would we?

I didn't like this from Sheehan. And I think regardless of his intent, it has the potential to play on racial fears.

And I appreciate your noting the way polarizing is really a way of other campaigns bringing in all the GOP smears of the past, including the sexist ones, to use against Clinton.

I would just point out two things:

1) It hasn't just been Dodd pushing the polarizing, Obama has done it, too. Maybe even harder at times. He has paid absolutely no price for this.

2) While I commend your noting what that is really saying, a lot of liberal commentators have been completely quiet over it because they don't want Clinton to get the nomination.

I fully expect the Clinton campaign to get blowback on this and they deserve it.

However, when this process is over, regardless of who wins, I think there needs to be a serious discussion about the so-called "liberal" voices of the blogosphere and the way many of them, although certainly not all (Digby!), have refused to push back against a lot of the rank sexism coming from the MSM with an assist from Democratic candidates, simply because they don't like the target of the narrative (who, not surprisingly, like the target of so many MSM narratives is the leading Democratic contender).

To be clear, I'm not saying folks have to support Clinton because she's a woman or support her at all. I've just been very disappointed in the silence coming from a lot of blogs about the sexist narrative surrounding her run for the presidency. I don't think that serves Democrats in the long run, but even more importantly it most certainly doesn't serve women.

Is the narrative coming from the Obama camp sexist, though? I recall him doing an interview in the Washington times saying that the attacks on Hillary in the 90's were unfair and undeserved, but they are what they are, and that means her negatives are going to be high. I've always assumed that his electability argument, then, was more nuts-and-bolts than philosophic in nature. Or does one have to pretend that the reality of the situation doesn't exist?

Cause whether or not the attacks and the high negatives are sexist in nature or at least root-cause, the attacks happened and the negatives are high as a result.

I think Obama and his people mostly rely on the press to pick up the "polarizing" stuff and spread the GOP smears. But there have been at least two occasions when Obama has personally played the gender card, IMO:

1) When he referred to Hillary's 20-year pact to become president. Not only has this Gerth BS been discredited, but it is sexist. Hillary Clinton has plotted to become president. She didn't work for it or dream of it. She plotted! This touches on any number of negative stereotypes about women. And I don't believe for a moment the Obama people don't understand that. Why else bring up a thoroughly discredited minor point?

2) I can't remember the exact quote, but Obama responded to the experience argument by essentially saying Hillary was nothing more than Bill's wife in the WH. Men often try to reduce women through this kind of talk. Because everyone knows wives can't be important, they don't have accomplishments of their own, they don't contribute at all to their husband's success.

I don't think it's true that the Obama campaign doesn't know what memories and stereotypes they are tickling when they say Hillary is polarizing. They know exactly. As with the Gerth crap, that's the point.

And as for Obama's "but it's not her fault" crap that's the same as Shaheen using "that's not what I think, it's just what the GOP will say."

"Obama responded to the experience argument by essentially saying Hillary was nothing more than Bill's wife in the WH"

I think the only reason he used that argument is because Hillary's entire campaign seems to be predicated on the fact that she was physically in the White House during a moderately successful presidency.

With her pushing such a theme so hard, pushing back was necessary.

It wasn't his pushing back, it was the way he did it. I wish I could find the quote, but I can't seem to come up with a narrow enough search. A lot of his pushback on this issue was fine with me, but there was one time where he was particularly demeaning, IMO. He was clearly frustrated and it was unscripted and it was just such a sexist view of marriage and the limited role of "wife" as an accomplishment. If I had been Michelle Obama, I'd have kicked his ass when he got home.

But, in general, I don't believe campaigns communicate into the culture innocently. I don't believe the Gerth stuff and some of the polarizing stuff was said by Obama in a way that didn't recognize the larger context.

Just as I think the Clinton campaign immediately recognized the racial issues brought up by Shaheen's comments and took quick action.

Soullite,

You're hopelessly naive to think that misogyny plays no role whatsoever. If Clinton was a man, do you honestly think the intensity of hostility towards her would be the same? C'mon. And I'm an Edwards supporter but even I can spot the crazy hate people have towards her, not her policies.

Besides, check out her voting record and compare it to Obama. If she's so damn conservative, why is he so similar? On the Iran vote he so conveniently missed, he co-sponsored a bill that labeled Iran's Revolutionary Guard with the same exact language as the bill Hillary approved of.