If nothing else, Elizabeth Warren has managed to get a lot of people interested in the Democratic primary. The barriers to participation in a conversation over health care or education aren’t high, but they require a baseline level of policy chops. There’s no such barrier to talking about what to make of a woman saying something about a male friend that the male friend denies. We all know men and women, and we all have friends. On the minus side, when everyone is talking at once, not much gets heard. Worse, political partisans aren’t in a persuadable mood at times like this, if they’re ever persuadable at all. Members of Camp Liz or Camp Bernie are unlikely to budge much, and, this week, everyone’s in Camp Liz or Camp Bernie. At best, it beats talking about Megxit.

For returnees from Jupiter, here’s a quick recapitulation. This Monday, in the run-up to the last Democratic debate before the first Democratic primary (technically, caucus), in Iowa, CNN ran a story about a 2018 meeting between Massachusetts senator Elizabeth Warren and Vermont senator Bernie Sanders. The headline read, “Bernie Sanders told Elizabeth Warren in private 2018 meeting that a woman can’t win, sources say,” and CNN pointed to “four sources” backing up this account of a two-person meeting. Sanders denied having said it. Warren, claiming to have “no interest in discussing this private meeting any further,” insisted that he did say it. Then, last night, at a debate moderated by CNN, Warren reiterated the claim and Sanders reiterated his denial. After the debate, in a much-discussed few seconds, Sanders extended his hand for a shake while Warren kept hers in a ball, and the two had a quick tense-looking exchange that only a discomfited Tom Steyer could hear. (Wisely, Steyer is pocketing his information, for now.)

On the face of it, Warren’s play (she may not have directed the leak; but she certainly prepared to capitalize on it in the debate) has given her a boost. Warren was drifting in the polls in the run-up to the debate; obviously, a poor Iowa result could be fatal. A surge of support can put a candidate over the top, and mobilizing female voters can be crucial, as we saw with Hillary Clinton in 2008, when Clinton’s deft response to a stunt by two hecklers yelling “Iron my shirt” helped lead to an upset against Barack Obama in New Hampshire. Sanders has no easy way to deny the story that he said a woman couldn’t win. Nor does he have an obvious defense against charges of sexism or, for that matter, any ism. No one does. That’s why such labels are both ubiquitous and resented. Warren had also prepared remarks to complement the leak, offering a debate line that the “men on this stage” had collectively “lost 10 elections,” while “the only people on this stage who have won every single election that they’ve been in are the women.” Lots of viewers found this effective.

But, despite such plusses for Warren, there are minuses. In a dispute of the he said, she said variety, which is what this is, in the most literal sense, reputation is paramount. Bernie Sanders draws fire for all sorts of alleged vices: crankiness, extremism, yelling, anger, oversimplification, demonization, selfishness, arrogance, craziness, among others. (I note rather than endorse them.) Even his biggest detractors, however, tend not to go after his integrity. That Sanders would offer sexist discouragement of Warren’s candidacy and then lie about it are claims that run counter to his reputation. Even if both accusations happen to be true, Sanders has a large credibility vault from which to draw. Warren has less in that area. Just Google “Elizabeth Warren lies” and “Bernie Sanders lies” and note the contrast. Regardless of what is fair or what you believe about either candidate, it’s revealing about the public consensus.