How he did it? you say, of all that is old enough to remember a President back in 1960 named John Kennedy, Barracks issues and plans for America are very simular, the young and the black voters came out in record numbers and voted for Kennedy, and they did the same for Barrack, this President will be more like Kennedy than any of the past ones. Glad to be a Democrat we have needed this for a long time and you may think that I am black but your wrong again.

If Obama does not keep Robert Gates as Secretary of Defense (an equally strong option), ask McCain.

Why?

1) Team of Rivals Theory
2) It would earn Obama full and immediate military respect
3) Allows Obama to acknowledge that The Surge in Iraq has worked without having to immediately say so explicitly (given residual political issues from the campaign)
4) It would be a concrete demonstration of working to build the kind of post-partisan government Obama's been talking about (and make up for missed chances during the campaign (see e.g. declining town hall circuit))
5) It would be a very strong statement that he truly intends to be everyone's president (i.e. Republicans, too) and clearly demonstrate the ability to capitalize on political opportunities that were so sorely squandered by President Bush (see e.g. post-9/11 world unity; 2004 election (building further political capital rather than pledging to "spend" it))

I say this as a strong Obama supporter, mind you...

Obama won Roman Catholic voters, another group he was supposed to lose.

Having a Roman Catholic running mate probably didn't hurt.

I really think we need to start breaking down the "White People" vote. IIRC Obama won 50+ of the white vote in PA. We should split it out with the neo-confederates vs. Real America.

"For all the talk about Obama being unable to win over Hispanic support, Hispanic voters backed Obama by more than a 2-to-1 margin...Obama won Roman Catholic voters, another group he was supposed to lose."

Thinking more about the Dem primaries, Obama also won Pennsylvania, Michigan, Florida, Ohio and Indiana last night...states he wasn't supposed to win (according to presidential candidate Hillary Clinton).

Hillary did a great job of healing the wounds during the general election, but she shouldn't have created those wounds in the first place with her divisive and nonsensical arguments during the Democratic primary.

Also, I still remember her trying to talk Bill Richardson out of endorsing Obama with the following assertion: "But he can't win, Bill! He can't win!"

Now if Hillary would quietly resign from her Senate post, and we could get a genuine progressive to take her seat, then I'd be thrilled.

I've written similar things on PA before, but my hope is that Obama will help to usher in a truly post-racial society.

He's "50% black" and "50% white," but he's the "first black president."

I'm reminded of a friend in South Africa, an English woman married to an Indian. She has three children, each of whom were classified differently under the old apartheid racial categories (she told me that after each child was born, she had to hold her child up to a window in some ministry office, where the minor official behind the glass would determine the kid's "race" based on clearly quite arbitrary criteria).

In defense of Hillary Clinton (and I was so angry with her during the primaries), she really did campaign strongly for Obama. Bill Clinton was passive aggressive and resentful, but Hillary Clinton did everything that could be expected and then some. I plan to send her some money to reduce her campaign debt as a thank you. No, she's not my favorite politician, but she champions the right issues and she deserves a lot of respect for behaving with class and dignity after she lost the primary.

I suspect the much-vaunted 'youth vote' didn't come through...

just as in 2004, we are chasing a chimera.

For whatever reason, America's youth don't vote in disproportionate (or even proportionate) numbers to their elders.

Those who were politically active/ committed may have turned out disproportionately for Obama, but they didn't turn out disproportionately.

chris y

No. Catholic voters are not Catholic Voters.

The latter are the Karl Rove target group, culturally conservative especially on 'Right to Life'.

The Archbishop (in St. Louis?) who denied Communion to John Kerry, for example.

Pliable to the Republican conservative message, and voting that way. Have trended that way since at least 2000.

'Catholics' as a broader group of Americans are also trade unionists, university academics etc. etc. and vote those loyalties. But those are Catholics who attend Mass twice a year, and the Church does not command their political loyalty.

HR Clinton would have won big on that 'Catholic' vote, because it is a relatively working class vote.

Al

Kennedy was a domestic conservative. His domestic agenda was blocked, and he did little about Civil Rights. That was left to LBJ.

In his personal life he was rash beyond belief-- it could have wrecked his presidency.

In international affairs JFK was rash, nearly plunging the world into WWIII. And his growing engagement with SE Asia presaged an American disaster from which it has yet to fully recover.

A wonkish technocrat-- President Al Gore as would have been, would be enough to hope for.

And fingers crossed not another Jimmy Carter, or even Bill Clinton.

Republican John McCain won 55 percent of the white vote.

* While Obama did far better with white voters than most recent Democratic candidates, McCain still won every age of whites -- except whites under 30, who strongly backed Obama (54% to 44%).

* For all the talk about Obama being unable to win over Hispanic support, Hispanic voters backed Obama by more than a 2-to-1 margin.

As I wrote on another post, how disastrous would a Republican president have to be before these whites (mostly men) would vote for a Democrat (of any color or gender)?

I think Democrats have found with this election that the changing demographics of the west and the rising interest in environmentalism give us an opportunity to take much of the west to win and the Liberalizing of young Americans eventually giving us a major majority.

But, this leaves the Republican Right, the Southern Strategy and 'white men' in opposition and the wide wide gap between these two cultures in disrepair.

Do we let this split remain until Republicans come around or do we just exploit it by winning the Northeast and West to stay in power?