The Obama campaign has been a great step in the right direction toward a "post-racial" America -- not necessarily one where people don't notice differences in skin tone or culture (how bland would that be!), but one in which they are not a factor in elections. Clearly, race mattered to some degree to many voters -- that it was, according to your data, a net "plus," is a reflection of changing demographics of the electorate. The Jim Crow era voters are dying. College education rates are high among the younger Boomers like I (b. 1959, grew up in mixed race areas of Louisville, remember the 60s and the school busing battles of the 70s) and those born after the Civil Rights movement. For almost half the electorate, Martin Luther King is not a memory but a holiday and an icon. A larger turnout rate among minorities may have offset the influence of those for whom a candidiate's Blackness was still a negative. So yes, let's celebrate progress. May there be much more of it in the next 8 years.

especially this:

while Hillary backers were too busy blaming sexism for her failure,

What's astonishing about it is how you take yourself out of this picture, and just report it dispassionately as if you weren't one of them.

I'm sorry it just seems bordering on the bizarre to not acknowledge something of your own responsibility for this while critiquing others for it, I mean since yours was not just an opinion expressed by someone but an opinion published far and wide to many readers.

There were times you criticized Obama for "not doing enough" to combat the sexism of others. The double standard was astonishing, imagine demanding that Hillary not only refrain from any racism as some saw it, but insist that she rush to defend Obama against the racism that was so coming from elsewhere, and blame her for not doing so. No one I saw ever thought to demand that.

I don't disagree with your view of things as expressed here, for the most part, as I say. I just find it bizarre bordering on offensive to ignore the huge, non-stop effort by you and others at Salon at some of the things you're describing as if they were only done by unnamed others.

One thing I couldn't believe during the primary was the number of male friends who simply despised her in the 1990s, who voted for her in the primaries this year.

Racism trumps sexism, every time.

The NY Times published a map http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2008/11/05/us/politics/20081104_ELECTION_RECAP.html showing that a broad swath across middle America voted MORE Republican. I can only interpret this as racial prejudice. The good news is how limited it was.

...who are solidly under the republican tent anyway.

If the Democrats can build on their majority and undo a lot of the age-old republican voter suppression strategies, the racists will become disinterested in politics and stop voting... to the benefit of everyone in the United States and the world.

Joan, I am curious if you think Senator Clinton would make a good Secretary of State? She is tough and hawkish on the war, and though this is one of the key differences between her and Obama, the President-elect has said he likes to have people around who will disagree with him and tell him the other side of the story: that sounds more like H. Clinton than J. Kerry.

I find the most fascinating part of this election is how all of the darkest predictions about the democratic party:

-HRC will split the party/the party will never unite

-the long primary battle will destroy Obama

-HRC is just giving the GOP ammo for the generals

-HRC (and her cronies) is encouraging racism

-HRC destroyed her political legacy

were completely wrong.

The long primary battle toughened Obama up, made him a better debater, allowed him to make minor missteps before the whole country was watching (and learn from them), and gave the nation more time to get to know him.

HRC's "kitchen sink" scandals were old new by the time McCain/Palin threw them at him. Nobody cared about Obama the "Muslim," Reverend Wright, Rezco, or Ayers, because Obama had already answered them effectively.

And HRC became a Democratic hero at the convention with her speech "Were you in it just for me? Or were you in it for what I stood for?" is one of the best moments of the campaign.

In contrast, all those dire predictions seemed to come true for the GOP and their candidates:

-Palin turned off moderates and independents

-McCain/Palin appealed to the worst sentiments of Americans

- the long campaign seemed to weaken McCain

-Palin has imploded (really? anyone see her as a viable candidate in 2012 without a brain and ethics transplant? Anyone ...? Bueller ....?)

-McCain is diminished, by failing to follow his better instincts, and selling his soul to the Rovian Horde.

-the McCain/Palin staffers are ripping each other to pieces in spectacular fashion.

It's a great day for America. Thank you, Obama. Thank you, Hillary. Thank you, voters. (And thank you, McCain/Palin!)

Pythonista, I would quarrel with your definition of "broad." I think Oklahoma was the only state that, overall, went more Republican, and only 22% of counties (most of them clustered in and around Oklahoma) went more Republican. 78% of counties went more Democratic. Let's celebrate the good news.

Nice cheap shot, sunspot! None of the people I'm talking about voted for Clinton because of racism.

Finally, Bill E. Pilgrim, I can only imagine if during the primaries I'd taken time out to hail Clinton's appeal to working class men. I can just imagine the hundreds, if not thousands, of letters accusing me of ignoring the racism behind her candidacy. But I'm glad you're still here, trying to keep me honest, while you're convinced I'm incapable of it! Have a good Sunday!

Check this out:

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/11/09/ruling-helps-franken-in-tight-minnesota-senate-race/

I think, historically, the reverse is true. Black men have very often come into positions of power before women--as members of the Supreme Court, as enfranchised citizens, and as presidents.