If Fianna Fail had deliberately set out to select a presidential candidate who would alienate the broad unionist community in the North they could not have done better - or worse - than Mary McAleese.
As for nationalists, the view is divided. Many of them admire her, but are shocked at the way Albert Reynolds, architect of the peace process, was dispatched. They see Mary McAleese's entry into the presidential race as precipitating his ignominious exit. A friend in Derry said it reminded her of Macbeth - "There was Bertie, trying to summon up courage to do the deed. Enter Mary, stage right, with the words `Infirm of purpose! Give me the dagger!'"
Watching this election from a vantage point midway between the talks at Stormont and the sunny suburbs of south Dublin has been an instructive experience. It is only a few weeks since the name of another Northerner, John Hume, was being discussed as a successor to Mary Robinson. Voices were raised - in this newspaper, on RTE - against the idea. How could Hume, a Northerner who had spent his entire political life in a bitterly divided society, reflect the aspirations and achievements of this State? The other question asked was what kind of message it would send to unionists if Hume, the leader of Northern nationalism, were to become president.
In the event, Mr Hume decided that his duty was to stick with the peace process. Now we have two Northerners in the race and, oddly, the questions which seemed so important in relation to the SDLP leader have faded from the debate. In the case of Dana, who is standing as an independent and has never presented herself as a political nationalist, this is not very surprising.
Mary McAleese is a horse of a different colour. She is standing as the Government candidate, endorsed by Fianna Fail and the PDs. She has spoken of following Mary Robinson's lead in "reaching out" to the North and "reconciling people to each other". One might have expected that searching questions would be asked about how she is viewed in the North, particularly by the unionist community, with whom the Government of this State is trying to reach a historic political accommodation.
I've spoken to a number of unionists in recent days about Mary McAleese's candidacy and have been shaken, frankly, by the degree of hostility which her name provokes. They see her as combining the two qualities which they most fear in the politics of the Republic. She is a formidably articulate, even aggressive, nationalist who has expressed views - on Northern Ireland as an "archetypal police state", on why young people join the IRA - that unionists find deeply offensive. She is also a fervently committed Catholic who has acted as adviser to the Irish Hierarchy. "Rome Rule wrapped in a green flag" was how a unionist friend described her.
I know that these criticisms will be seen as unfair, even sectarian, by Mary McAleese's admirers. Protestant clergymen who have worked with her speak with genuine admiration of her efforts in confronting sectarianism within the Catholic Church. Nonetheless, this is how she is widely perceived in the unionist community. At a political level, Ken Maginnis and Jeffrey Donaldson, neither of whom could be described as an extremist, have said they do not believe she will be able to "reach out" to unionists.
It is hard to believe that Bertie Ahern and his advisers did not discuss this when Mary McAleese offered herself as a candidate. In the past, Fianna Fail has been acutely aware that any appointment of a Northerner to the political life of this State should respect the sensitivities of both communities.
The recent appointment of Maurice Hayes, the former Northern Ireland ombudsman, as a senator is an example. Hayes is a nationalist, but commands the trust of both political communities. By contrast, Mary McAleese is seen as threatening by many unionists and receives, at best, the lukewarm endorsement of nationalists.
This brings me to a broader political point about this election. I fear that when the campaign is over and we have had time to ponder its significance, the contest will be seen as one when women candidates were used - or allowed themselves to be used - to further the narrow political interests of individual parties.
Mary McAleese's candidacy has already solved a lot of problems for Fianna Fail. Sooner or later, the party is going to have to bind up the wounds that have been caused by the humiliation of Albert Reynolds. If Mary McAleese wins the election, it will allow Bertie Ahern to claim that, for the good of the party, it was necessary to eliminate Albert from the race and that his strategy was a success. But even if the candidate loses, the Fianna Fail leadership will be able to say that this pushy Northerner put herself forward, and there was really nothing they could do to stop her.
Labour's choice of Adi Roche is, if anything, more dispiriting. If she loses, then the net result will be that the work of an energetic and committed campaigner will have been partially discredited. It is disingenuous for Ruairi Quinn to suggest that Ms Roche embodies the same qualities which made Mary Robinson an attractive candidate.
It is true that Mrs Robinson saw that it was essential to win votes beyond the Labour Party's traditional base, but she had a clear, tough-minded political philosophy which was rooted in the need for radical change in our society. Her political home, despite her differences with it, was in the Labour Party.
There are Labour women - and men, come to that - who share this view of politics. Yet Dick Spring and his male colleagues have gone outside the party for a candidate. As with Fianna Fail, it is a minimum-risk strategy. If Adi Roche wins, her victory will be a coup for the Labour leader.
If she loses, the word will go out that she was naive, neurotic even, and that this is what happens when you draft an inexperienced outsider. I do not yet know how significant it is that both of the current front-runners were propelled into the presidential race by the men who control Fianna Fail and the Labour Party. Presumably both Mary McAleese and Adi Roche were keen to stand and feel they have something unique to offer the Irish people. What I do fear is that when this election is analysed it will be seen that two, at least, of the candidates were willing to play the game by the old shoddy - and yes, male - rules which feminism has always tried to challenge.
That isn't true of either Mary Banotti or Dana. The first conducted her campaign within her own party, and her candidacy is an endorsement of a serious politician on her known track record. As for Dana, she is the only candidate who has challenged the political establishment, with great professionalism and charm, and won. This is a phenomenon which deserves much more serious attention than Mrs Scallon has so far attracted. I hope to return to the subject in a future column.