Two points.
   1. The notion that any comment negative of Hillary is a comment negative against all women is nonsense. All women are not running for office; she is and has a history  on which people hold differing opinions, and  she makes specific statements as to matters of the campaign for which others are entitled to hold her responsible. It sounds like you want a rule here that anyone who criticizes a female candidate is being a sexist, where making similar comments against a male is . . . what,. . . justice, retribution? And that the standard for all male candidates, but not females, in a political race is 110% courtesy and nothing at all negative at all times. Maybe for your dining room, but not for a national political campaign.
   2. The PUMA people are not criticizing Obama sensibly. They get torn apart when someone like David Schuler or Larry King interviews them. I have read and read on this post, and the manner of addressing O is one which might be suitable for the kid next door, but not for an experienced politician running a national campaign, a style of addressing the issues  and the candidates from which Hillary has been stunningly free of similar analysis.  How green he is, if you ignore his entire resume before the Senate and give Hillary credit for the entire Clinton administration. How flip floppy if he triangulates when you praise Clinton for being a politician who can work with others bipartisanly. How weak.How presumptuous and egotistical (compared to whom?) How ignorant. How . . . not American enough. How dishonest, how inconstant, how manipulative, etc etc etc. without ever subjecting Hillary to anything similar because it would be sexist - as if the comments were themselves not a sexist commentary which you could see if they were applied to her and not him. And making  consistently positive assumptions about her virtue in all matters, regardless of evidence cited to the contrary. You see the sexism against Hillary but not the wrongs done in the same bigotry category by her and them, and many other Clinton supporters not only on this site but in other places.
    It is this onesidedness, nasty personalization, and bitter vituperation  and after-the-fact historical revisionism about it which politicians will wonder will appear in another campaign the next time another female candidate is proposed. Do they want to take the chance on a candidate who, with her supporters or not, will do things oblivious to their collateral political consequences which will fall on others, will offend other important constituencies whose support for the general election is also mandatory and not optional, will adversely affect the campaign to come against the other party (as, for example, the Hillary clips now appearing in McCain ads, which she was warned about at the time and did anyway).  

The DNC is a separate matter, but no better. the purpose of party rules is to provide a neutral field on which candidates may compete and to avoid damaging occurrences which will negatively affect ANY candidate of the party in the General Election. It appears that what you have trouble with is the rulings they made in issues in which you have a partisan interest. Mature politicals and people generally are aware that neutrally made rulings sometimes go against them without wrong being committed. That thought is not present in PUMA and similar. And the argument is fatally weakened when, assuming you and PUMA are right in saying Florida and Michigan should not be punished and Hillary should get all of the delegates she wants and a large chunk of 'uncommitted', your candidate agrees that the two will not count and says so in public and signs an agreement that she will not 'participate', not just 'campaign' in those primaries, and then, when it turns out she needs those states, pretends it never happens and attacks the DNC for undemocratic behavior. If the behavior was undemocratic, she should have said so at the time rather than agreeing with it publicly, and then changing her tune. Did anyone  sensible genuinely expect that after having made the ruling without objection by you or your candidate, the DNC should turn right around and say O NO, we were so wrong, when your candidate changed her tune. Same with the caucuses, which were OK untl she lost all but I think it was one of them, in February, and when her failure to organize in Texas and a lot of places threw her campaign off kilter. And then when the DNC tried to find ways to do do-overs, only one option was acceptable to your candidate, and it didn't happen in either place for reasons the DNC did not control, such as state legislatures and state statutes. The War against the DNC is not on grounds of corruption, else you would have insisted that no one who was a supporter of either candidate could sit on the Rules and ByLaws Committee, rather than having a situation in which your candidate was one short of an absolute majority without dispute by PUMA, and still  managed to lose on both states by substantial margins. It would have been worse had the first Michigan vote stood, but the Committee decided a 14-13 vote against your candidate was not strong enough although valid according to the rules. The radioactive attacks on Donna Brazile personally do not help, since it does appear that one of her sins to PUMA was personal disloyalty to the Clintons, although loyalty would not have been a fault, and one was gender disloyalty. The underlying PUMA issue is a belief that Hillary has never been wrong, not that the DNC is really, independently corrupt.  

And it is not me narrowing the issue down to a sexism cartoon. Go back and read that last few months of posts on this very site, with a neutral eye. While this is a Clintonista site generally, and accepted by me as such, read the posts carefully and see if the essential attack is a character attack on speakers and  a use of gender bias for a partisan purpose, or is an attack you would consider fair if directed to Clinton on the same basis of underlying facts. Rep. Lee's proposal would have given, early on, an opportunity to make the gender bias issue a neutral issue, a bad course of conduct generally on which reasonable folk in our party did not differ,  rather than a partisan one, always directed to Clinton personally by all other folk in the party. But, that road not having been taken, it is for this campaign and has been used so blatantly foolishly and so broadly that it is discredited at least in part prospectively, unless the truly blatant appeared (and you are correct if you gather that I don't think O doing the Jay-Z brush, or saying Hillary was likeable enough after her remark about being found unlikeable, or his helping her with her chair at one of the debates, the way mothers teach well raised sons to do as basic courtesy, is not truly blatant.)

Two points.
   1. The notion that any comment negative of Hillary is a comment negative against all women is nonsense. All women are not running for office; she is and has a history  on which people hold differing opinions, and  she makes specific statements as to matters of the campaign for which others are entitled to hold her responsible. It sounds like you want a rule here that anyone who criticizes a female candidate is being a sexist, where making similar comments against a male is . . . what,. . . justice, retribution? And that the standard for all male candidates, but not females, in a political race is 110% courtesy and nothing at all negative at all times. Maybe for your dining room, but not for a national political campaign.
   2. The PUMA people are not criticizing Obama sensibly. They get torn apart when someone like David Schuler or Larry King interviews them. I have read and read on this post, and the manner of addressing O is one which might be suitable for the kid next door, but not for an experienced politician running a national campaign, a style of addressing the issues  and the candidates from which Hillary has been stunningly free of similar analysis.  How green he is, if you ignore his entire resume before the Senate and give Hillary credit for the entire Clinton administration. How flip floppy if he triangulates when you praise Clinton for being a politician who can work with others bipartisanly. How weak. How ignorant. How . . . not American enough. How dishonest, how inconstant, how manipulative, etc etc etc. without ever subjecting Hillary to anything similar because it would be sexist - as if the comments were themselves not a sexist commentary which you could see if they were applied to her and not him. And making  consistently positive assumptions about her virtue in all matters, regardless of evidence cited to the contrary. You see the sexism against Hillary but not the wrongs done in the same bigotry category by her and them, and many other Clinton supporters not only on this site but in other places.
    It is this onesidedness, nasty personalization, and bitter vituperation  and after-the-fact historical revisionism about it which politicians will wonder will appear in another campaign the next time another female candidate is proposed. Do they want to take the chance on a candidate who, with her supporters or not, will do things oblivious to their collateral political consequences which will fall on others, will offend other important constituencies whose support for the general election is also mandatory and not optional, will adversely affect the campaign to come against the other party (as, for example, the Hillary clips now appearing in McCain ads, which she was warned about at the time and did anyway).  

The DNC is a separate matter, but no better. the purpose of party rules is to provide a neutral field on which candidates may compete and to avoid damaging occurrences which will negatively affect ANY candidate of the party in the General Election. It appears that what you have trouble with is the rulings they made in issues in which you have a partisan interest. Mature politicals and people generally are aware that neutrally made rulings sometimes go against them without wrong being committed. That thought is not present in PUMA and similar. And the argument is fatally weakened when, assuming you and PUMA are right in saying Florida and Michigan should not be punished and Hillary should get all of the delegates she wants and a large chunk of 'uncommitted', your candidate agrees that the two will not count and says so in public and signs an agreement that she will not 'participate', not just 'campaign' in those primaries, and then, when it turns out she needs those states, pretends it never happens and attacks the DNC for undemocratic behavior. If the behavior was undemocratic, she should have said so at the time rather than agreeing with it publicly, and then changing her tune. Did anyone  sensible genuinely expect that after having made the ruling without objection by you or your candidate, the DNC should turn right around and say O NO, we were so wrong, when your candidate changed her tune. Same with the caucuses, which were OK untl she lost all but I think it was one of them, in February, and when her failure to organize in Texas and a lot of places threw her campaign off kilter. And then when the DNC tried to find ways to do do-overs, only one option was acceptable to your candidate, and it didn't happen in either place for reasons the DNC did not control, such as state legislatures and state statutes. The War against the DNC is not on grounds of corruption, else you would have insisted that no one who was a supporter of either candidate could sit on the Rules and ByLaws Committee, rather than having a situation in which your candidate was one short of an absolute majority without dispute by PUMA, and still  managed to lose on both states by substantial margins. It would have been worse had the first Michigan vote stood, but the Committee decided a 14-13 vote against your candidate was not strong enough although valid according to the rules. The radioactive attacks on Donna Brazile personally do not help, since it does appear that one of her sins to PUMA was personal disloyalty to the Clintons, although loyalty would not have been a fault, and one was gender disloyalty. The underlying PUMA issue is a belief that Hillary has never been wrong, not that the DNC is really, independently corrupt.  

And it is not me narrowing the issue down to a sexism cartoon. Go back and read that last few months of posts on this very site, with a neutral eye. While this is a Clintonista site generally, and accepted by me as such, read the posts carefully and see if the essential attack is a character attack on speakers and  a use of gender bias for a partisan purpose, or is an attack you would consider fair if directed to Clinton on the same basis of underlying facts. Rep. Lee's proposal would have given, early on, an opportunity to make the gender bias issue a neutral issue, a bad course of conduct generally on which reasonable folk in our party did not differ,  rather than a partisan one, always directed to Clinton personally by all other folk in the party. But, that road not having been taken, it is for this campaign and has been used so blatantly foolishly and so broadly that it is discredited at least in part prospectively, unless the truly blatant appeared (and you are correct if you gather that I don't think O doing the Jay-Z brush, or saying Hillary was likeable enough after her remark about being found unlikeable, or his helping her with her chair at one of the debates, the way mothers teach well raised sons to do as basic courtesy, is not truly blatant.)

Trying to tie any mention of these topics to a somehow misguided partisan base, which will be met with "contempt and disgust" , and endanger any possible future nomination of a female candidate is simply to twist facts.

The stench of misogyny which rose out of this Primary campaign was overwhelming, and in the end could not be ignored by many women.