The presidential race in America is turning out to be much more interesting than expected. At the time of writing, the Democratic nomination is not quite wrapped up — but Hillary Clinton is on the ropes and Barack Obama is the all-but-certain nominee. Unless something drastic happens, it is he who will slug for the Democrats against the Republicans’ John McCain in the general election.

It was not supposed to be this way. Mrs Clinton, wife of the former president and senator from New York, was supposed to waltz to the nomination. It was hers for the asking. She was a great heroine of the Democratic party, their Joan of Arc. But, in the course of her waltz, a young senator from ­Illinois cut in.

He had had very little experience: after a stint in the Illinois legislature, he was elected to the US Senate in 2004. Yet many wanted him to be president. He inspired them with his rhetoric — gassy words about “hope” and “change” — and he was black, or half black. Many Americans long for a president “of colour” to help wipe away the stains of the past.

Philosophically, there is very little difference between Senators Obama and Clinton. They are both statists, central planners, proponents of Big Government. In Europe they would belong to one of the socialist camps. But American political taxonomy is a little strange: however illiberal they may be, they are called “liberals”.

Mrs Clinton comes from the Sixties’ Left; Obama, at 46, is younger than that, but he might as well have sprung from there too. His politics are warmed-up McGovernism (I refer to 1972’s Democratic presidential nominee, George McGovern). There is nothing interesting about Obama’s politics: nothing unorthodox, nothing innovative, no enticing deviation.