The dust has settled, at least a little bit, from the presidential election, and it is interesting to try to figure out what the results mean and don't mean. Unquestionably, electing an African-American as president is historic and means something. Such a thing would have been unthinkable a generation ago, and it certainly shows we have made enormous racial strides as a nation.

However, we should not make too much of this particular aspect of the result. Barack Obama is not one of the African-Americans who are the target of negative feelings by those with some racist tendencies. Raised pretty much in Hawaii by Caucasian grandparents and ultimately elected president of the Harvard Law Review, his educational path would be desired by parents of any race. While his election is of course a landmark achievement for an African-American, I see it more as a validation of an extremely bright, well-educated and insightful person who happens to be African-American than a victory for a race. Another, less-talented African-American might not have fared as well.

I also don't think the election represents a major shift in the thinking of the country. Recall that in 2000, George Bush received 48 percent of the popular vote while this year McCain received 46 percent. A slippage of 2 percent in eight years is not exactly seismic. In fact, the difference this time around was the poor performance of third-party candidates, apparently receiving only about 1 percent of the vote as compared to 4 percent in 2000. Had the third parties done as badly in 2000, Gore would have likely won. To say we are seeing a new era in this country is premature at best.

Further, had the McCain camp not seriously miscalculated the loyalty of its conservative base and picked Sarah Palin as a running mate, the election would have been closer. As much as the far right dislike McCain, they dislike Obama and the Democrats much, much more. They would have voted for any Republican and against any Democrat no matter what.

Wasting the VP pick on Palin was unnecessary and cost far more than it gained. For example, Texas Sen. Kay Hutchison, while not adored as much by the right as Palin, would not have cost any conservative votes and would have attracted far more from the middle.

What conclusions can we draw from the election? More than anything, it was a response to the stubborn, wrong-headed and deceptive policies of George Bush and the members of his administration. His rock-bottom approval ratings virtually ensured any Republican who could be linked to him would have a hard time, and the Democrats were successful in making the connection. One of the most effective messages the Obama camp sent was that McCain supported Bush 90 percent of the time. What a weight this was for McCain. Frankly, the biggest surprise of this election was as dissatisfied as the country was with Bush, McCain still got 46 percent of the vote. Perhaps the biggest lesson of the election is we can have an extremely unpopular departing president and his party can still get close to half the vote. There is a clear message here: Our country is still split and two groups are staring at each other across a wide ideological chasm that can't even be bridged by a common disgust with a sitting president.

This should be a sobering thought for Obama. Don't look at the landslide in the electoral college (which should be abolished). Look instead at an election where 47 percent of the voters didn't want you as president. Bush did not heed this message in 2000 when more people voted against him than for him. He behaved as if he won by 90 percent. Obama is much smarter than Bush and should realize he did not get a mandate. He must work to implement the ideas that got him elected while listening to the views of the opposition. If he fails to do this, in eight or perhaps even in four years, he will find himself at the bottom of a pendulum swinging back to the other side.