Where Did Hillary Go Wrong?

What is the most persistent barrier to success in America today?

Is it racism or sexism?

That seems to be part of the battle for the Democratic nomination this year. I've been thinking about it since my original choice for the nomination, John Edwards, announced his endorsement of Barack Obama last week.

And I've been thinking about it today, as the voters have been stating their preferences in the primaries in Kentucky and Oregon.

I don't think there's any question that racism and sexism have been factors in the Democratic race this year.

No matter what some of the high-minded supporters of both candidates will tell you.

We haven't reached the phase of the campaign where the most popular parlor game for Democrats becomes the guessing game about the presumptive nominee's choice for running mate. The time for that will come later in the summer.

So, these days, the most popular parlor game in Democratic circles is trying to evaluate where Hillary Clinton went wrong.

Seven months ago, I was almost resigned to the belief that she would be the party's nominee. I wasn't alone. Most people seemed to assume that Clinton would be at the top of this year's Democratic ticket.

Tonight, even though Clinton has apparently won Kentucky by a wide margin (as expected) and has told her supporters that she will keep going in spite of "some pretty tough odds," I hear speculation about what went wrong for the Clinton campaign.

I've been hearing that kind of speculation for a couple of months now. And I've been giving it a lot of thought.

I've come to a few interesting conclusions.

I don't think you can blame her loss on any single thing.

Yes, I think she has run a poor campaign, one of the poorest presidential campaigns I've witnessed in a lifetime of watching presidential campaigns.

Yes, I believe she and her staff were convinced they would wrap up the nomination by "Tsunami Tuesday" in early February and failed to prepare for a campaign that would go on well beyond that point.

Yes, I feel she -- and her husband -- have repeatedly tried to "play the race card" to win white votes away from Obama.

And, yes, I'm convinced the American public has grown weary of the Bush and Clinton families and doesn't like the idea of political dynasties occupying the White House.

It goes against the grain. This country came into existence in part because the people who came to the New World didn't want to be ruled by a monarchy anymore. That desire still lives in the 21st century.

Democratic voters wanted to make it clear that no one was entitled, by bloodlines or marriage vows, to occupy the Oval Office.

And there's something else I've come to believe recently.

I've seen no exit polls that ask about this. I have no solid evidence backing it up.

And I'm not even sure people would answer the question honestly if asked.

But I believe that, deep down, Americans aren't ready to elect a female commander-in-chief in a time of war.

(They may not be ready for a black man to be commander-in-chief in a time of war, either. But I guess we won't find out about that until November.)

I don't know how significant that is as a factor in Americans' decision-making process. I don't know if it's the deal-breaker for Clinton.

But I believe, if most of the other factors are lining up against her in the voters' minds, it's the thing that could push many of them over to the opposition.

Today, we have troops in Afghanistan and Iraq. It's always possible American troops could be engaged in another conflict -- in the Middle East or some other global hotspot -- before the next president takes office.

At a time when Americans are worried about escalating fuel prices and food prices, economics could trigger armed conflict in almost any part of the world.

That may not be the reason why the Democratic Party looked for leadership from a man and not a woman -- or even why Democrats apparently have chosen this man over that woman.

Both blacks and women serve in the military today. But Harry Truman desegregated the troops in time for the Korean War, and blacks have been serving alongside whites ever since.

Having women as part of the fighting force is a relatively newer phenomenon for Americans. I don't think women took on an active battlefield role until the Gulf War under George H.W. Bush in the early 1990s.

And, while no one will dispute that women have served ably and admirably, I don't think the majority of Americans are ready to see a woman take over as commander-in-chief and start making wartime decisions on Day One.

Does that mean a woman won't be elected president until the War on Terrorism has been resolved? I don't know.

What I do know is that America is at war in two countries tonight. And it appears, at this point, that Americans will be choosing between two men for president in November.

It could well be that Hillary Clinton cast the vote that doomed her presidential ambitions in 2002 when she joined 76 other senators in authorizing George W. Bush to use force against Iraq.