With his patented combination of trenchant insight and abject blindness, Jonathan Freedland explains Hillary’s victory to Guardianistas: 

All this suggests a fascinating shift. At the weekend, after Obama’s win in Iowa, America was debating race, congratulating itself – prematurely it now seems – on at last transcending the fatal flaw that has blighted the republic from the days of slavery to segregation. Now it is gender politics that’s at issue. Is Hillary held to a double standard? Or does she want it both ways, to be treated equally yet playing the victim when under fire from mostly male critics? Once again the US presidential system, especially its primary phase with its oft criticised focus on personalities, has shown its uncanny knack for airing the defining social issues of the age.

*******

For plenty of people, especially those outside the US, the only question that really matters is which of these two could beat the Republican in November. It’s too early to predict, but let’s imagine John McCain becomes the Republican nominee. McCain has a maverick reputation, but he is a foreign policy hawk: he is the proud author of the “surge” in Iraq and has joked about bombing Iran. Yet his life story – a Vietnam war hero and former PoW – is compelling and appealing. Obama would surely look woefully inexperienced against him. But in a direct contest McCain’s candid, man-against-the-machine style would contrast well with the often robotic, technocratic Clinton, too.This is the great risk of Hillary. I’ve watched her since that 1992 campaign and I can’t help but doubt that she could ever get the American people to elect her: she carries so much baggage and so many people can’t stand her. So if New Hampshire’s lead is followed by the nation, this could be the legacy of Tuesday night – a clash of McCain v Clinton that ends with four more Republican years in the White House.

Huh. Well, I wasn’t aware that John was the author of The Surge. Well done, Maverick.