The Democratic presidential primaries smashed every record for turnout and spending, shattered glass ceilings that once hovered over women and black candidates, even broke a few hearts.

But, after a process that began slipping and sliding in the ice of Iowa – taking in all 50 states – before drifting out thousands of miles into the Caribbean island of Puerto Rico, the question remains: Did Barack Obama win it – or did Hillary Clinton lose?

For much of last year, her massive lead in the polls reflected the conventional wisdom that the front-runner was inevitable and invincible. Mr Obama, by contrast, was a mixture of hype and hope, a black man with only two years’ experience in the US Senate who had the audacity to challenge the hegemony of the Democrats’ most powerful family.

Only in retrospect is it clear that there were flaws in the Clinton campaign that should have had the red warning lights flashing.

She entered the race as a brittle candidate with an air of entitlement who underestimated her opponent and ignored the mood for change sweeping a country that, after a second Bush presidency, looked askance at the prospect of voting for another Clinton.

She was reliant on an old-fashioned political machine that failed to recognise the internet’s capacity to raise money until it was almost too late, and was riven by personal rivalries dating back to her husband’s White House.

Insiders are already pouring out their recriminations. A recent article in the New Republic magazine disclosed a series of e-mails from the unhappy citizens of “Hillaryland”. One sent in a list of the top 25 screw-ups which began with a reference to the former campaign chief. “1. Patti. 2. Solis. 3. Doyle.” Another identified the pollster who set much of the early strategy. “1. Mark Penn. 2. Mark Penn. 3. Mark Penn.”

Mr Obama’s team identified Iowa early on as critical – the “whole shebang”, as his campaign manager David Plouffe put it – to securing lift-off. They spent thousands of hours building a grassroots organisation and introducing their exotic brand of inspiration to this conservatively minded Midwest state. Mrs Clinton’s campaign panicked and spent almost all its war chest trying to land a knockout blow. She finished third.

But then she made the first of many comebacks. With tears welling in her eyes, Mrs Clinton defied the polls and the acclamation around Mr Obama to snatch an unlikely victory in New Hampshire. This caused her to hesitate about reshuffling her campaign leadership, which proceeded to roll out a strategy for fighting the Super Tuesday national primary as if nothing had changed.

But in between came South Carolina, where a racially charged primary in which Bill Clinton was too often puce-faced and prominent, saw the African-American vote coalesce around Mr Obama.

And, while Mrs Clinton managed a score-draw on Super Tuesday, her campaign had no plan for the 12 contests following through the rest of February. Mr Obama, whose strategists had worked away quietly harvesting votes on the ground, won them all. He was running up huge margins against Mrs Clinton in caucus states which she had chosen to ignore, making a bigger net gain of delegates in tiny Idaho than she did in winning big states.

It is a testament to her resilience that her presidential ambitions did not die in February. Indeed, a candidate who began with strong support from blacks and educated feminist women managed to complete a remarkable transformation into a populist champion of the white working class.

The final third of the primary campaign saw her finish stronger than Mr Obama, winning landslides through the Appalachian region and raising real doubts about her rival’s appeal in the the big swing states the Democrats need to win this November. His association with the Rev Jeremiah Wright of “God Damn America” fame, as well as suggestions that bitter small-town inhabitants cling to guns and religion, are sure to feature in the general election.

But in fighting so hard on such issues, Mrs Clinton may have been damaged more than Mr Obama. Her desperation to demonstrate her credentials as a potential commander-in-chief led her to make risibly exaggerated claims about being pinned down by sniper fire on a trip to Bosnia – reminding voters of her family’s on-off relationship with the truth.

The taint of later comments about her appeal to “hard-working Americans, white Americans”, as well as unfortunate remarks appearing to suggest that Mr Obama might be assassinated like Bobby Kennedy, will not be forgotten.

Ultimately it was the super-delegate party Establishment – many of whom owed debts to the Clintons and harboured grudges towards them in equal measure – who finished her off by filing into her opponent’s columns.

There is palpable resentment among many of her followers that she should have been denied the prize in such fashion. Mrs Clinton is said to be hurt by the way most Senate colleagues had rejected her. Fingers of blame are also being pointed at the often slavishly admiring coverage of Mr Obama by the media which, Clinton allies say, was in contrast to the allegedly sexist treatment she received.

The Clintons, who have not lost an election with their name on the ballot since 1980, will only slowly come to terms with the sensation of defeat. Both remain colossal figures in the party even if their stature, particularly that of Mr Clinton, has been diminished. Both are convinced, or have at least convinced themselves, that their tireless campaigning and effort was all a selfless attempt to save their party from a selecting a weak nominee who will be mowed down by the Republican “attack machine”.

To the Obama camp, such talk is just another example of the vanity and obsession with self-justification that dogged the White House in the 1990s.

Mrs Clinton may well have contributed to her own defeat. But she would also, perhaps, have beaten anyone except Mr Obama. This was a tale of two extraordinary candidates. And one of them had to lose.

Black power

— The first black American senator was Hiram R. Revels, in 1870. In 1896 a former slave, George Henry White, was elected to Congress, campaigning for the education of African-Americans and against discrimination

— Martin Luther King Jr led the civil rights movement half a century later. His work from the mid-Fifties until his assassination in 1968 was fundamental in bringing an end to legal segregation in the US

— The Voting Rights Act of 1964 changed American politics: six black congressmen held office in 1966, but four decades later there were 42

— Carl B. Stokes became the first black mayor of a big US city when, in 1967, he was elected in Cleveland

— In 1968 Shirley Chisholm became the first black woman elected to Congress. She won 152 delegates when she ran for the Democratic presidential nomination in 1972

— The Rev Jesse Jackson campaigned for the Democratic presidential nomination in 1983-84 and 1987-88

— Colin Powell, born to Jamaican immigrants, rose through the military to become Secretary of State in 2000. He was succeeded in 2005 by Condoleezza Rice – the first black woman in the role

Source: Times archives

Times Recommends

• 'New York has lost its edge'
• Copenhagen will fail – and quite right too
• More than 17,000 new underwater species found