The Telegraph:

Women voters, long taken for granted by Hillary Clinton as she gave speeches about making history as the first female American president, are deserting her in droves for her rival Barack Obama…

If Sen Obama were merely any other senator giving “female” Sen Clinton a run for all she’s worth for the Democratic nomination, few — even in media — would have been too surprised.  Interesting that, given how in the current global hoopla over Sen Obama, he is still a man.  Somehow, U.S. and foreign media have curiously spent little time asking, “Is America ready to elect a woman president?”

Therein lies perhaps Sen Clinton’s biggest problem.  Similarly, Sen Obama’s “cross to bear” has been the perpetual ”Is America ready to elect a black president?“  But that is not really the correct question, for Sen Obama does not — insofar as I am aware — make a great play of possibly being the “first black American president”.

“Why Sen Obama is doing so well?”  It’s not as puzzling as many believe, or wish it to be.  America is simply not the same place it was in 1864, or in 1964.  While some percentage of Americans today undoubtedly would NEVER vote for a black man (and within that percentage, there probably are certain lunatics, who might try something far worse) no matter how unifying he was, it does not seem to be the case any longer that most wouldn’t.  That is the real political “earthquake” of the last generation.

Americans also expect to see something of themselves in a presidential candidate and — especially — in his suggested policies.  They do NOT elect “female” presidents, or “black” presidents.  So by being fortunate in campaigning now and not in 1964, and in not emphasizing ”difference” nearly so much as hyper-stressing his commonality with everyone, Sen Obama has deftly combined being fortunate in time and place with his own determination to make himself a candidate in whom most voters see at least something appealing. 

As a natural result, he is attracting increasing numbers of voters — of all types.  If the Senator continues down this campaigning path, realizing how he is on a stage far-larger than any other single one in American politics, he may continue to do well.  

However, a backslide is always possible.  For instance, if Sen Obama wins in New Hampshire today, and a national TV audience sees the divisive, “ethnic sectionalist” Rev Sharpton on the podium behind the Senator, one shouldn’t be too shocked if the Senator’s campaign finds itself deader in the water than an Islamic Republic gunship that in the near future gets too aggressively close to a U.S. cruiser in international waters.  Regardless, whatever happens, in our frantic, 24 hour a day world, The Independent will likely get around to “analysing” the results . . . perhaps by Thursday.

_____________________________

UPDATE:  That’s not to say nobody is discussing the “female” issue.  David Aaronovitch in The Times (via the wife):

…Iowa has never elected a woman in a congressional or gubernatorial election. So sure, you can have the safe, smily, “witty”, mixed-race guy, but let’s not go for the scary woman … Shouldn’t [she] really (oh, whisper it) be at home with the kids?…

…Mr Obama can be loaded with just about any expectation or hope. He’s a changer, he’s a healer, he’s a radical, he’s a moderate, he suspends the normal rules of politics. In this sense his great advantage is that no one knows what he is, and we are all therefore free to create our own Obama. Mrs Clinton’s disadvantage turns out to be definition, because we all understand exactly what she is. In America, as here, we demand authenticity but we rarely reward it at election time, much preferring ambiguity…

Incidentally, those are “restrained” excerpts.