Members of his party are doing their best to appeal for the funds without appearing greedy, ungrateful or hostile to their new leader.

“If I was a top adviser to the president elect, I wouldn’t necessarily be advocating saving those dollars,” said Raymond Buckle, chairman of the New Hampshire Democratic Party.

“It was critically important that we not repeat what happened in ‘93, ‘94,” when President Bill Clinton held the purse strings and Democrats lost 54 U.S. House seats and eight senators during midterm elections.

“We need the resources to build the national grass roots network for the Obama agenda. We need to make sure the president is successful and that the administration fulfills his promises,” Buckley said.

The Democratic National Committee is carrying about $5 million in debt, with almost $12 million cash on hand. DNC officials say they expect to have the debt paid by the end of the year.

The Democratic Congressional Campaign CommitteeDemocratic Senatorial Campaign Committee is nearly $13 million in debt. carries some $19 million in debt and less than $3 million on hand. The

Obama raised more than $745 million during his marathon campaign, more than twice the amount obtained by his rival, Republican John McCain. In his latest finance report, Obama reported raising $104 million in more than five weeks immediately before and after Election Day.

“This is the first presidential candidate and president who has not been publicly financed in the general election,” said Ken Gross, a former Federal Election Commission lawyer. “Every other president since Jimmy Carter has not had excess funds.”

Obama opted not to participate in public funding system. In exchange, he was able to continue raising money, while McCain accepted $84 million in taxpayer money, and the spending restrictions that went with it, through the public financing system.

“The only example that comes to mind is John Kerry,” Gross said. “He finished his primary campaign with a $15 million surplus. That created some grumbling, since he lost.”

Democrats blamed Kerry’s loss, in part, on a campaign hierarchy that didn’t spend wisely or aggressively. Kerry’s own campaign chairman, Terry McAuliffe, called it “gross incompetence to hoard that money when the race was bound to be so close.”

Obama aides are aware of the stigma and don’t want to appear inelegant or selfish. They are weighing whether to keep the money to build a massive grass roots program to support his agenda, or to cycle that money to the party apparatus. Both ideas have strong advocates, but it’s unclear to those involved which way Obama will go.

“We aren’t in a position to announce what the next steps for our organization are today, but are continuing a dialogue with our supporters about their vision for how we move forward,” said Obama spokesman Ben LaBolt.

Party officials around the country say the campaign leaders have signaled they shouldn’t expect the money to come to them directly, if at all. Instead, many party officials expect Obama to use his funds to advance his own priorities, to support his massive Internet-based organization and to have cache for special causes. With almost 4 million donors, Obama’s fundraising list could prove golden for future Obama-backed drives.

“Right now, it looks like the sky is the limit,” Gross said.

Obama aides emphasize the campaign expects to continue having expenses, along with tax obligations and political operations. They also say Obama has little interest in bankrolling state committees or individual candidates. Those involved say the logical option is the Democratic National Committee, although no one is pressing for a quick transfer.

On Wednesday, Obama send a fundraising e-mail to his supporters asking them to help retire that debt by buying coffee mugs or fleece sweat shirts. Obama and Democratic aides alike say they would use similar efforts going forward, but were aware that asking too often could dilute the effectiveness of the list.

Legally, Obama can donate the extra money to charity, transfer it to another political campaign, or dole it out in $2,000 increments to local candidates, Gross said.

“That’s not too attractive, but it’s something,” Gross said.

His remarks followed comments from his brother, President Raul Castro, who told a U.S. magazine he could meet Obama in a “neutral place” to try to end the Communist-run island’s four-decade conflict with the United States.

“With Obama, talks could happen anywhere he wants,” Fidel Castro, America’s longtime Cold War enemy, wrote in the latest of a series of columns he has published in state-run media since falling ill in 2006.

“He should remember the carrot-and-stick approach will not work with our country,” Castro wrote of Obama. “The sovereign rights of the Cuban people are not negotiable.”

Fidel Castro, who took power nearly 50 years ago after an armed revolution, has not been seen in public since undergoing surgery for an undisclosed illness in July 2006. But he has met several state leaders and appeared in photographs.

Obama, who takes office on January 20, has raised hopes of improved U.S.-Cuba ties by saying he was open to talks with the Cuban government and has favored easing some U.S. sanctions.

He has said he will reverse the U.S. administration’s policies restricting Cuban Americans from visiting Cuba and sending cash to their families. He is willing to talk to Castro but would keep the four-decade-old U.S. trade embargo as leverage to influence changes in the one-party state.

Raul Castro formally took over the Cuban presidency in February and has said several times Havana is willing to talk to the United States.

Before the U.S. presidential election last month, Fidel Castro praised Obama as intelligent and humanitarian in the columns that have become his main form of communication.

Raul suggested in the interview he could meet Obama in Guantanamo Bay, where the United States maintains a naval base, which Cuba considers a violation of its sovereignty.

(Reporting by Patrick Markey; editing by Todd Eastham)

In a Post-ABC News poll last month, nearly nine in 10 whites said they would be comfortable with a black president. While fewer whites, about two-thirds, said they would be “entirely comfortable” with it, that was more than double the percentage of all adults who said they would be so at ease with someone entering office for the first time at age 72, which McCain (R-Ariz.) would do should he prevail in November.

But the good news may stop there. “As Sen. Barack Obama opens his campaign as the first African American on a major party presidential ticket, nearly half of all Americans say race relations in the country are in bad shape and three in 10 acknowledge feelings of racial prejudice,” according to the same poll.

Overall, 51 percent call the current state of race relations “excellent” or “good,” about the same as said so five years ago. That is a relative thaw from more negative ratings in the 1990s, but the gap between whites and blacks on the issue is now the widest it has been in polls dating to early 1992
More than six in 10 African Americans now rate race relations as “not so good” or “poor,” while 53 percent of whites hold more positive views. Opinions are also divided along racial lines, though less so, on whether blacks face discrimination. There is more similarity on feelings of personal racial prejudice: Thirty percent of whites and 34 percent of blacks admit such sentiments.

Moreover, the Post reports in a separate story that Obama’s historic primary victory “has also sparked an increase in racist and white supremacist activity, mainly on the Internet, according to leaders of hate groups and the organizations that track them.”

Neo-Nazi, skinhead and segregationist groups have reported gains in numbers of visitors to their Web sites and in membership since the senator from Illinois secured the Democratic nomination June 3. His success has aroused a community of racists, experts said, concerned by the possibility of the country’s first black president.
“I haven’t seen this much anger in a long, long time,” said Billy Roper, a 36-year-old who runs a group called White Revolution in Russellville, Ark. “Nothing has awakened normally complacent white Americans more than the prospect of America having an overtly nonwhite president.”

Watch the American News Project’s recent piece exploring the phenomenon of “white nationalism”: