The quote was raised in the press this year after Obama's New Hampshire debate 'you're likeable enough' gaffe, wherein the moment was compared to the Lazio debate in its effect on simpatico women. So fairly certain it is the real deal, roughly speaking of course (going off of memory as I was).

Speaking of Obama's New Hampshire gaffe, after that one he was compared to an 'embittered boyfriend' and the like in the press. An assault on men or the man?

I ask because this goes to your response- that the difference is that attacks on Hillary are a cottage industry. Well, I won't deny that they are but I think this is a bait and switch. Cocco et al are not referring to the right wing slime machine and its propensity to attack Democrat wives with only a strong backbone in common, (I don't recall whether or the extent to which they went after Tipper, but certainly Hillary, Theresa Heinz-Kerry and now Michelle are and were bete noir cause celebre for the wing nut slime industry), strictly speaking. Sure, that is the source of such things as the Hillary nut cracker, one of which I guess Terry McAuliffe owns, but, in the main, her indictment is of the main stream news media. What I've been saying here, is that it's not clear we've separated the cultural propensity for name calling (which is designed to be personal) and cultural comfort with women hating. I do not doubt the latter exists, in spades on the right, and to a lesser extent on the left. My trouble is with the Gloria Steinem's in this world whose goal it has been since the beginning to elevate that victimhood above all other social considerations (and not just other forms of bigotry, but other social dysfunction, not least the adolescent nature of our news media and culture).

So I am not sure I buy your argument that these things are different, simply because one can be associated with more things that others have said. The underlying purpose is the same.

I'm not saying I disagree with you, I'm not saying I don't, but you should recall that after the infamous moment in Hillary's first Senate campaign against Rick Lazio, wherein he approached her lecturn and appeared to try to physically intimidate her, (thereby sinking his campaign), her campaign people described him, and I'm paraphrasing here because the quote's not in front of me, 'a deadbeat father complaining about having to pay child support'. You'll have to explain to me how that's ok, but describing Hillary Clinton as a nagging mother is not. Because I don't see the difference (although I allow that both might be wrong, I would just like to see some sensible rules outlined, before people hyperbole off on how some nebulous one's have been broken in this campaign).

The irony of all this is that so many Clinton supporters reserved special venom for Michelle Obama. Joan Walsh being the quintessential example.

For all the complaints from the same side about AA's, (Clinton short hand for African American, which apparently sounds better then 'them blacks'), voting in unison for Obama, what this is really all about is much more commonplace. A significant majority of older white Democratic women want someone who looks and thinks like them, to be President. It's that simple. And when they see the same derision they happily heap on opponents and opponent's uppity wives directed toward their self-image, they see misogyny- 'feel it in their bones'. This is a tantrum, not thoughtful commentary. Please- for the sake of everyone's sanity- find an academic to take up this cause, or at least someone with an academic's 'inquiry first' mindset. Because by your actions, Clinton supporters have zero credibility on the subject.

Btw, as for Obama slipping up by calling one reporter 'sweetie', at least he hasn't demeaned Senator Clinton's achievements and qualifications for the Presidency and denounced her wins- for example in New Hampshire- as functions of elderly white women's 'pride in voting for one of their own' like Clinton did about Louisiana. Obama as disrespectful, prejudiced? Kettle. Pot. Black (and incidentally, unpatriotic).

Read the FT I gather? I liked that column too btw...

This is from the same columnist that steadfastly accuses Obama of playing the race card to this day, even after West Virginia and all the shucking and jiving before it. The fact that the member of one tribe feels oppressed without remote cognizance of the larger context, including oppression by her own tribe, is really highly very unimpressive. Unless you're merely applauding the prose, I suggest you find a less monomaniacally dim individual to pass judgment on the culture.