Watching the election returns roll in Tuesday night, it was hard not to be reminded of that crucial scene in "Casablanca," when Ilsa Lund, snuggling against Rick’s shoulder, sighed, "Oh, I don’t know what’s right any longer. You have to think for both of us."

This is essentially what Americans were saying Tuesday. You have to think for all of us. Which is why so many of us found ourselves clinging to Barack Obama. Like Richard Blaine in the movie, Obama was a hard man to define. His origins were shrouded in mystery, and therein lay his appeal. Granted, he isn’t quite the enigma Rick was. There is no Inspector Renault to say, "I’ve often speculated why you don’t return to America. Did you abscond with the church funds? Run off with a Senator’s wife? I like to think you killed a man. It’s the romantic in me."

Yet Rick’s response, "It was a combination of all three," was vintage Obamanian obfuscation. We tolerated his obliquity because it served our interests. As the embodiment of hope and change, it was essential that Obama not define those qualities. Otherwise, how could so many of us pin our hopes and dreams to his presence?

Today ostensibly shrewd commentators are devoting themselves to the question of whether Obama will be able to rein in the Congressional liberals. Those few who studied the man and his history are more inclined to ask, "Why would he want to?" But for the rest, the relatively moderate, centrist Obama of the last few months allows them to hang their hopes on the presumption that this is in fact the real Obama. The rest of his life, the bulk of the statements, actions and associations of the previous 47 ½ years, mean nothing.

For others, this desperate redefinition recalls the punch line to the old bawdy joke, "Who are you going to believe? Me, or your own lying eyes?"

The fact is, we don’t know who Obama is, nor how he will govern. We can hope that his ability to deliver a compelling speech, to act on cue and move to the right spot on the platform, will translate into genuine leadership. We can hope that his failure to respond to last month’s market crash was in fact a sign of grace under pressure, and not a failure of imagination. We can hope that his condemnation of Detroit automakers for building SUV’s "because they could make a profit," doesn’t actually mean he thinks it is wrong for a corporation to make a profit. Then again, we have his comment about pharmaceutical companies, "Now, these drug companies won’t willingly give up their profits."

But that might just be the kind of thing he had to say in order to win the nomination. His every action, alliance and statement over the course of his life could conceivably have been done and made solely to reach the point where he can bring his refreshingly moderate form of unifying leadership to the fore.

One can hope. One can hope most fervently that he achieves greatness, that like Ronald Reagan’s, his sunny optimism brings a new spirit to the American people. Perhaps a nation repeating "Yes, we can," will revive our spirit, and allow us to move ever forward as a beacon and shining example to a desperate world.

One can hope. As Americans we must hope that this will be the case. The greatest benefit of this dream sequence achieving reality will be its positive impact on that segment of society most in need of a psychological and spiritual boost, that of black males. It would be a tremendous benefit for us all if an educated, articulate, and in the words of our new Vice President, "clean" black man, who is married and an active father to his children, could become the new role model for African-American men and boys.

If Obama’s election comes to be viewed not as an end, but a new beginning for African-American men and boys, then that will be a true achievement. If he manages to rise to the level of greatness he embodies for his fervent supporters, then perhaps, just perhaps, the disappointment and despair, and yes, fear, so many conservatives feel, might not, in the words of Rick Blaine, "amount to a hill of beans."