Am I the only one finding McCain's speech not all that gracious? Rather McCain pointing out that Obama is black and empowers the powerless? That McCain implied that he just had the bad luck to be overrolled by the civil rights movement? Instead of "weirdly" as Beam puts it, I felt it was "intentionally".

I would be interested to read in the analyses how much black turnout really helped Obama getting elected. Until I read that it did, I think that this election was a referendum on GWB and the GOP of the 2000s. And Palin is just a caricature of the Bush/Rove GOP, the very end of a cul de sac.

I saw an interesting stat on CNN -- among voters who said race was a factor in their vote (either they voted for McCain because he's white, or they voted for Obama because he's black), the overall averages favored Obama 53% to 48%. Among voters who said race was not a factor in their vote, the averages favored Obama by the same margin, 53% to 48%.

Obama seems to have pulled off the trick of getting beyond race, at least for this election. That was his plan all along.

You know traugott, I didn't vote for the guy, but I thought McCain's concession speech was the definition of class act.

And as uncomfortable as it makes me to admit it, without Palin, I could have just about lived with him as president.

But as to Obama - sure he was helped by black turnout but you are talking about a demographic that already overwhelmingly votes Democratic. Turnout has increased among most groups this election - not just blacks but younger voters, hispanics, middle-aged voters even. The poll workers at my precinct in DuPage County Illinois (a Republican stronghold) were estimating turnout at 80%. That is overwhelming - and they didn't all vote for the new pres, I assure you.

When even the concession speech needs to be disected for hidden put-downs, it's time to give it up. The guy delivered a very gracious speech, but that still doesn't cut it with you because it wasn't complimentary enough, or the compliments weren't the right compliments.

I hope you're more laid back in your personal life. I hate to imagine you overanalyzing things at work: "The boss told me 'good job' but why didn't he say 'great' or 'exceptional'? The bastard must hate me..."

He didnt' get beyond race. If the economic collapse had happened next week, instead of 7 weeks ago, Obama would probably have lost the election. Green always trumps black or white.

And your assumption is based on the idea that only race was a reason to vote against Obama. You guys are stuck in thinking in terms of race rather in terms of issues.

I disagree with the news media and other anlaysis that the "economic downturn" and this election was a referendum on GWB and the GOP of the 2000s. Even if we knew what changes will go into effect with either McCain or Obama as President, the effects on specific types of investments isn't as obvious as it might seem. Many factors outside the control of the president, or of Congress, affect the fortunes of individual companies, entire sectors and investor portoflios. An internal financial scandal, failed product launch, or unwise acquisition can sink a company's stock price regardless of whether a piece of legislation supposedly helpful to that company's industry has passed into law. But the democracts didn't seem hesitant to hop on the bandwagon and blame and lable it as "bad and/or failed economic policy." If any party should be blamed for running a negative campaing, it may as well be the democracts when all the economic turmoil facing our ecomony at the present time, is certaintly hasn't been caused by the current Bush Adminstration. A Democract controlled house and Senate has been seated for two full years, and have been passing economic leliglation by a whim which have failed the American people.

The uncertainty extends beyond individual stocks. Entire sectors can find themselves at the mercy of commodities prices, currency swings, and the always-unpredictable whims of consumers. Unexpected foreign shocks--military, political, or financial--can hit the whole market hard. Certainly some presidential decisions, especially those that don't require congressional approval, can have an influence on the U.S. economy or the stock and bond markets. But that influence is extremely limited. Global economic conditions, meanwhile, are beyond the president's control. In fact, as we've seen recently, they're beyond anyone's control. therefore, for the democratics to start pointing the fingers at the GOP for finger-pointing, about failed economic polices over the last eight years -- how about say, the democracts have held a majority in the house and senate over the past two years, and haven't been able to control the downturn in the economy either, but shifts the blame onto the GOP?

The past offers examples of how tenuous the connection between a candidate's ostensible positions and subsequent investment results can be. In 1992, a feeling arose that should Bill Clinton win the White House, environmental stocks would benefit--mainly because Al Gore, even then known for his pro-environment views, would become vice president. Clinton and Gore did win, and a slew of "environmental" mutual funds came out.

Bad idea. As it turned out, sweeping pro-environment legislation wasn't the first thing pushed by the new administration. Or the second or third. Some environment-related actions eventually did emerge, but it still wasn't clear exactly what impact they would have on various companies. Most critical, though, was the vagueness of the investment concept. After all, what should an "environmental" fund actually invest in? Not an easy question to answer in the early 1990s. The funds made up their own solutions, and they ended up owning "green" firms that focused on alternative energy along with cleanup companies such as Waste Management plus a hodgepodge of various other stocks added in to fill out the portfolio. Not surprisingly, the funds proved disappointing, and most were merged away or liquidated. The GOP didn't twist the blame onto the democracts for those investment failures.

Did everyone forget that Obama is half white. He is not African American.

I think that Obama should proudly say I am Bi-racial. I am white and black and be proud of who he is and not lean on the African American race. I think that causes some racial problems. If he would just be proud to say that he is white and black there would be no race side (black or white). Be proud of what and who you are. AN AMERICAN. We should all work together to make this nation a strong nation and stop trying to see who can get the glory. The glory should belong to God. We should go back to ONE NATION UNDER GOD. United we stand .....divided we fall. We are all Americans and no one is above another. We need to start treating each other that way.

Obama is only 1/2 black remember??? And yes, it was reported that he got like 96% of all black votes across the nation.

Its Me 2:

Did everyone forget that Obama is half white. He is not African American.

African father.

American mother.

How is that not African-American?

"Am I the only one finding McCain's speech not all that gracious? Rather McCain pointing out that Obama is black and empowers the powerless?"

Yeah you are:

McCain's speech was gracious and also did honor to the importance to the national political DNA of an African American getting elected president. It is the best concession speech I've heard in a long life.

No, I totally agree with you. I began listening to McCain's concession speech wondering how he would come across: if as the old McCain or the nasty one we saw during the campaign. In my opinion he didn't start out very well, though, he improved towards the end of the speech.

What I felt was very disturbing, was the fact that he brought up race - that the African-Americans should be very proud and happy at Obama's election. I am not an African-American, but I was offended at what I heard McCain say at the beginning of his speech - not just what he said, but how he said it. To me it sounded condescending, as if Obama had been elected because he was black instead of being because he was a uniter, with clear ideas, clear policies, great intelligence and temperament. Wasn't it enough that McCain had offended most women (and most of the country) by choosing Palin as a running mate? Did he now have to adopt a patronizing tone and rhetoric and imply that Obama won due to race? Yes, African-Americans should be proud and happy that Obama - who happens to be half black - was elected. But so am I. Does it help that he is of black heritage? Definitely. It will help bridge the divide that still exists between races, but McCain should have started out by saying that Obama is an extremely intelligent and capable man and will need everybody's support to move this country forward. There should never have been any mention of race. It just made McCain sound petty and bitter.

As I said earlier, McCain's speech did improve. One part which I thought was especially strong was when he said it was his fault for failing to be elected. I agree: not only was he too old to hold the Presidency, but he was negative, offered no clear ideas or solutions, allowed Palin to be shoved down his throat, was condescending by his constant use of 'My friends', and then allowed Joe the Plumber (a person who understands little about the issues) to become his mascot in what appeared to be more a circus than a campaign. How else could McCain offend us, the American people?

As for Palin 2012? That won't happen. She's made too much a fool of herself.

Cris, you pretty much had the same reaction that I had, and I am happy that I am not paranoid (or at least some people share my paranoia). I do think that a truly gracious speech would have included praise or at least a sincere compliment to the winner ... and that was missing. Not that the speech was terribly wrong, I just don't think it is "the definition of a class act" as so many say. By the way, I would be very curious whether there are really angry, hostile concession speeches of a presidential loser.

Issywise, I respect your opinion, but you really wrote little in support of it.

No, you're not alone...I felt it was just as gracious as it had to be. He sounded stilted (though he was never good reading a scripted speech, so I'll make allowances), and though he did utter a few seemingly heartfelt respectful remarks, the one, overriding thing I DIDN'T hear was an admonition to his supporters to respect their new President, to stop with all the hateful remarks (not to mention the death threats!), and to try to work together for the good of the nation. That would have left his mark as a true patriot.

McCain's concession speech was, in my humble opinion, probably the best he could do given his lack of character.

I've never seen such a nasty, mean presidential race as this one and why the American people tolerate this is beyond me. The only thing that surprises me is the fact that McCain did as well as he did.

So far, although it's early days, Obama has moved quickly and surely to build a good cabinet. And, speaking of a "class act", he sure impresses me. So, let's sit back and see what this man can do for the world. Time will tell but I think the U. S. voters have picked a real winner...unlike the last eight years. Good job!!