Even in announcing his retirement Fidel Castro proved that he can still cause problems for those who occupy the Oval Office — and aspire to it.

After spending almost half a century putting sweat beads on the foreheads of ten successive US presidents, he would have relished the tortuous statements issued by the two contenders for the Democratic nomination.

Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama emphasised that they were open to the idea of a better relationship with Cuba. But both were all too aware of the large population of anti-Castro Cuban exiles in Florida — a state that has determined the outcome of the previous two presidential elections.

On the streets of Little Havana, the heart of Miami’s Cuban exile community, they have long dreamed of the day when their homeland is rid of the dictator nicknamed “Bola de Churde” — or dirtball.

Mr Obama said: “Today should mark the end of a dark era in Cuba’s history. Fidel Castro’s stepping down is an essential first step, but it is sadly insufficient in bringing freedom to Cuba.” He called for the prompt release of political prisoners on the island, before adding: “If the Cuban leadership begins opening Cuba to meaningful democratic change, the US must be prepared to begin taking steps to normalise relations and to ease the embargo of the last five decades.”

Mrs Clinton’s statement contained an uncharacteristic factual error, talking about “58 years of one-man rule”, but went on to declare: “I would say to the new leadership, the people of the US are ready to meet you if you move forward towards the path of democracy, with real, substantial reforms . . . The US must pursue an active policy that does everything possible to advance the cause of freedom, democracy and opportunity in Cuba.”

John McCain restated the hardline policy of successive US governments. The presumptive Republican presidential nominee said: “Freedom for the Cuban people is not yet at hand, and the Castro brothers clearly intend to maintain their grip on power. That is why we must press the Cuban regime to release all political prisoners unconditionally, to legalise all political parties, labour unions and free media, and to schedule internationally monitored elections.”

President Bush, who is in Africa, said: “Eventually, this transition ought to lead to free and fair elections — and I mean free, and I mean fair.” — not these kind of staged elections that the Castro brothers try to foist off as true democracy.”

The US has long had a detailed plan for assisting such a democratic transition. But Cuban officials have insisted that its regime will outlive Mr Castro. In Washington the Government said that it had no plans to change US policy or lift its embargo. Tom Casey, State Department deputy spokesman, disparaged the change as a “transfer of authority and power from dictator to dictator light”.

In Little Havana there was a feeling the party could only take place once Castro was in his grave. Hundreds tooted their car horns and a lone Cuban flag-seller set up a stall hoping for wider-scale merry-making. But celebrations were scant. “The day we celebrate will be the day Fidel dies,” said Maria de los Santos, 46, who came to the US on a boat as a toddler with her parents in 1963. Juan Manas, 66, who came to Miami in 1963 and now runs a florist on Calle Ocho, said: “Raúl or Fidel, it’s the same thing. If I went back a Castro would still be in charge.”

Times Recommends

• Henning Mankell: ‘If Wallander was alive, I wouldn’t be a friend of his’
• Secret society's skull and crossbones for sale
• Nigerian leader vanishes after medical treatment