Sixteen months ago, I announced why my candidacy for the presidency of the United States was impossible. I explained I could not afford it personally; I was doubtful I could get my party’s nomination; that an outsider could not win; the national government is broken and cannot be fixed by itself or the President; I am considered unpatriotic because I criticize the government; and my message would not resonate with enough voters.

It appears I was wrong about some of my concerns, but correct about others. In this new age of the Internet, anyone can raise money, large sums. Since Howard Dean’s meteoric rise, there have been countless national candidates who have garnered huge financial support through the Web. Senator Obama and Ron Paul have proven that there is gold in the Internet hills. So I might have overcome the first hurdle.

It also appears that there is a good chance that Senator Obama could gain the Democratic presidential nomination. I thought the party would act on its baser instincts and that racial bias would be too much for Senator Obama to overcome. Yet, since Iowa, it has been clear that many white Americans have embraced Obama as the best hope for the Democratic party and the country. It has been extraordinary to see Obama before masses of Americans who don’t look like him, earning standing ovations for his orations. Thus, with the right message, maybe I too could have impressed throngs of Americans yearning for better days.

What is unclear is how much Senator Clinton’s gender has had to do with her rejection by so many members of the party. That has been the greatest surprise in this election cycle. She was the presumptive Democratic nominee until Iowa. She had the lead, the money, the machine, the delegates, and Bill Clinton. She also had unparalleled name recognition throughout the world. On paper, Clinton has more experience than Obama, not just eight years in the White House and a dozen as the first lady of Arkansas, but also more time in the Senate. How could she fall so precipitously?

Surely some of it is the Obama effect: his charisma and message of change. Some of it is her unlikeability. Many people don’t like Bill and they don’t like Hillary. Yet, I suspect that many Americans still believe that politics is men’s work; that women belong elsewhere, caring for children or serving the fantasies of men. If I am correct about gender bias, it seems as pronounced among Democrats as it is among Republicans, and it may well be the party’s undoing.

Here I am reminded of Professor Kimberle Crenshaw’s important work on the intersectionality of discrimination and Professor Stephanie Wildman’s work on privilege. Race and gender are powerful markers of advantage and disadvantage. Race may mark Obama for disadvantage, while his gender may serve to privilege him against a more experienced veteran of American politics who is female. On the other hand, gender may mark Hillary Clinton for summary rejection, while race serves as a mark of privilege for her. For me, neither Democratic candidate has said enough about these markers and American politics.

Senator Obama’s extraordinary speech on race might have been a grand slam if he had also indicated that he recognizes the obstacles that all women face in a man-dominated society. Obama needs the support of the women who understand Clinton’s pain. Gender bias is as extensive and as important as racial bias. He needs to explain to women he understands their pain too or he will lose.

The Democratic party would be so much stronger if it understood the intersectionality of race and gender bias. Failure of the party to grapple with both forms of privilege may well throw the election to Senator McCain, who, of course, enjoys both markers of privilege.