What did Hillary ever actually do to deserve the label of polarizer?

Clarence Page, a Chicago Tribune columnist, referred today to the “polarizing reputation” of Hillary. That phrasing made me think: where exactly does that alleged polarizing reputation come from? What did she ever do to deserve it? What did she ever say? She’s not exactly Ann Coulter, after all. I believe the answer is, she has never done anything to justify the level of hostility that comes from the right wing – except to have been married to a President who was light years more successful than any other President since World War II, and who happened to be a Democrat who had stolen the traditional thunder of the GOP by balancing the budget, keeping inflation low and slightly reducing the size of the Federal Government, while presiding over an explosion in jobs and the stock market and avoiding any major wars. A huge threat to the GOP, in other words, and to the extreme right wing that has made the GOP its operational base, if the public came to recognize how successful the country was under a Democratic administration. He had to be brought down in any way possible, and they sure tried.

Feminists have the reflex belief that conservatives cannot handle a strong women, but they don’t seem to feel that way about Ann Coulter. I always think we underestimate the power of the right-wing message machine, its control of the agenda reported by the mainstream media (and probably its actual corporate control of what the media report), and, by osmosis, its ability to intimidate liberals into believing the power in the message. We should consider whether that reputation as a polarizer has any truth behind it – maybe I’m forgetting something, but I can see nothing of significance when I think about it – or is nothing more or less than a GOP propaganda campaign that many of us have bought into. She is a polarizer because the Republicans say she is -- another "meme" in action -- and they say it because they are scared to death of her.