Don't you think that four years of a successful Obama term might dull that argument somewhat? True, there are many die-hard bigots who will never be convinced otherwise, but it seems there may be some learned bigotry that can be unlearned between now and then.

In places like Ohio and Pennsylvania, it's already been more or less defeated. But in those deep southern states (AL, MS, SC, etc), it will only be marginally dampened with a successful Obama administration.

That seems to me to be the only rational explanation for what happened (or I guess is still happening since it hasn't been called yet) in Missouri. Somewhere in the neighborhood of 35% of the state lives in St. Louis City and St. Louis County with probably another 10% coming when you include St. Peters and St. Charles. But these are, relative to other areas of the nation, places where African-Americans make up a greater proportion of the electorate. Would have, on it's face, seemed like an opportunity for an Obama landslide.

Just for the record, I am very happy with the election results, but I'm still a bit perplexed by Missouri.

Four years of a successful Obama term?

Counting your chickens before they are hatched, are we?

The Republicans are "propping" up Michael Steele.

As far as this campaign goes, the biggest racists are the liberals who found it so easy to throw that term around whenever they didn't like what the right said.

@Alan4s; Before the Civil War, the vast majority of whites who lived in what eventually became the CSA, owned few or no slaves. In spite of that, when the war came,they fought fiercely and bravely to defend a system which benefited them none at all, and actually was to their detriment. The rich white slaveowners used the issue of race to keep poor whites in line, by pointing out to them that they certainly had it better than the "darkies".

Did it work? In the words of Sarah Palin, "You betcha"!