Mary Dejevsky: Is it worse to be a woman than a black man?

Sixteen years ago, winning second place in the New Hampshire primary made Bill Clinton the "comeback kid" and gave him another chance that took him all the way to the White House. Second place in the ballot for his wife today would be quite a different result, presaging the eventual end of her presidential run.

At 46, Barack Obama has entranced, perhaps bamboozled, the voters, rekindling the flame of JFK. He reflects back to a new generation of Democrats and the sort of Americans they fancy themselves to be youthful, committed, enterprising and, above all perhaps, broadminded. They are not the sort of Americans No, sir! to be put off by a candidate's colour.

Self-congratulation is already in the air. At long last, it is being said, America is ready for a black President. Almost 150 years after the abolition of slavery, 40 years after the heyday of the civil rights movement, the racial taboo is finally being overcome.

This argument is not without its flaws. Obama's success can be explained in part by the fact that his speech, manners and culture the products of his mixed white and black Kenyan background are more "white", in the American context, than they are "black". Some American journalists have got into huge trouble for saying this, but the extreme sensitivity of the observation does not make it less true.

If we are imprisoned by stereotypes, however, there is another perhaps less thoroughly optimistic construction to be placed on the early stages of this presidential race. In a contest that pitches a black man against a white woman, voters are plumping for the man. Despite all the efforts put into affirmative action in recent decades, gender it seems remains at least as great a liability as race.

Of course, there are many reasons apart from gender why a primary voter might choose Barack over Hillary. Americans like a self-starter, which is how they see Obama. He is a naturally inspiring speaker; he "connects". He has an interesting life story. He scores higher than she does on the index of instant likeability.

In her stiffness of manner and cultivation of hard work, Clinton has something of the stilted earnestness that doomed Al Gore. Add the baggage of the Clinton name, the voters' sense that perhaps they have been around these tracks before, and you can understand why they might have doubts. Change, after eight years of George Bush, has a powerful pull, and Clinton, for all her transparent competence, belongs to an ancien regime.

It is also worth asking how much she ever really wanted to be President. How far did the impetus for a run came from her, and how far was it thrust upon her by a party hierarchy convinced that her name-recognition and fundraising capacity gave her the best prospect of victory?

I am not one of those who regards Hillary as the personification of ultra-feminist ambition, but I can well imagine that she might harbour a desire to avenge what she saw as her husband's honour, and that this, along with duty to the party, provided her motivation. The historic distinction of becoming the first woman President of the United States would then be a bonus.

Even with all these caveats, however, there has surely never been a female candidate as well qualified in every way to be President as Hillary Clinton. She has the money and the capacity to raise as much as it would take. Last year, Democrats desperate to see their party back in the White House were positively throwing dollars at her campaign. She has the connections: Bill Clinton remains the ultimate networker.

No one can doubt, either, that she has the intellect and professional expertise. In common with many US politicians, she began her career as a high-flyer in law. And even if you discount her two torrid terms as First Lady, she still has as much political experience in her term-and-a-half as a Senator in New York as George Bush did when he made his successful run for President.

As for presentation, the investment that must have gone into making her the real-life clone of Annette Bening playing opposite Michael Douglas in The American President can only be imagined.

What Hillary Clinton does not have, however and almost no American woman politician will have even today is the unbroken, focused career path that takes young-ish men within touching distance of the presidency. The stock of experience, contacts and exposure to the rough and tumble of the political process that propels them to their political prime in their 40s may for women still be a generation or more away. This is not a question of youth versus gravitas or charm versus competence. It is about how US politics works and the preconceptions that voters of both sexes have about the presidency. If Hillary is not able to overcome these handicaps, there is probably no female politician in the United States who could.

m.dejevsky@independent.co.uk