Collegiate Times

I find it odd that you attack my post when you yourself did a very poor job of countering my point. Obama was a freshman senator with barely a year of experience before he received the nomination. Compared to his opponents his abilities were unimpressive and frankly unremarkable. I would cite the fact that he won the popular vote by those margins as proof that we forced that moment because we a society love those racial Horatio Alger stories. What makes his story unique is that he didn't have to convince us to support him, we wanted to support him. We wanted Obama to overcome and historically minorities have had the masses against them overwhelmingly.

I find it odd that you think your posting has a "point" rather than just insults. Which of the following insults would you like me to address?

Your denial that Obama's scholastic pedigree and constitutional law professorship exhibits "talent" while ignoring the appointment of a talentless beaurocratic drone like Clarence Thomas to the Supreme Court.

Your comparison of the Presidency to the Harlem Globetrotters?

Your belief that succeeding at Columbia, Harvard Law, local, state and national politics doesn't exhibit gifts that can't be ignored?

Your belief that the President's "inexperience" was "relatively" undesirable to a mediocre student/lifetime unaccomplished Senator and a horrible student/sportscaster/beautyqueen/mayor of podunk Alaska?

Or your belief that his ascendency to the highest and most difficult office in the country was a lark of the collective, sappy, and sympathetic groupthink of 69 million Americans?

I counter whatever point you are trying to make with this: people usually vote for the smartest guy in the race. The aberrations being Reagan and W (twice). They won because their opponents were unlikeable.

Hey the Harlem Globetrotters comparison isn't an insult. The team was created because at first black players could not participate in Basketball. It was because of the dedication and talent of the team that those racial barriers were lowered and blacks were allowed into professional basketball. I would agree that Sarah Palin was also unqualified but Hillary or Edwards should have beaten Obama handily in the primaries. The reason Obama won the primaries was because of sappy groupthink. You're delusional if you honestly believe that his race played no part in the nomination.

I spoke nothing of his qualifications and would honestly say that had he been white and still made speeches to the same caliber that he did he still would have won by an overwhelming majority. You can call it what you want, but race still did play a factor in terms of reasons for voting. You even admit it that you wanted a vote for the FIRST BLACK president. That is a vote, supported in part by desire to see a man of color in the office. I'm not even going to address your last paragraph because it's completely frivolous and in no way is based on any kind of reasonable logic.

that's called the standard black vote + the eligible black voters who don't usually vote + rich white people not in the financial sector.

i had a roommate in college who took a picture of his absentee ballot b/c he wanted to show his grandkids that he voted for the first black president ... don't tell me anything about how race had nothing to do with it cuz it's not true!

Sounds like race has more to do with your roommate's family dynamic than his choice of candidate.

he's white.

I figured. That's my point.

I don't see your point. Race of the voter is irrelevant. I'm not saying race is the sole factor, but I genuinely believe there were lots of people both black and white (including my roommate) and other races who said "wow, this is a very well, spoken black man running for president with a lot of popularity and support. I'm going to go vote for him b/c he'll likely be the first black president." That's voting for somebody because they are black. I'm not saying that's unacceptable - to each voter, his own decision; I just think that there are more objective reasons to vote for a person.

What you've described is not "voting for someone because they are black."

It's voting for someone because you want to be a person in your family that can say that you voted for "the first Black President."

it's one and the same. color of skin was a motivation.

No, it isn't. What you've described is "bandwagoning"...the motivation of that voter was to say he was "one of the group" that elected the first Black President. Your friend wasn't voting for Obama because Obama is black. Your friend's motivation was to want to claim to be a significant part of history. He expected Obama to win so his vote wasn't toward helping Obama to win, rather, it was so that he could say "I was there." You've just superimposed your belief on that voter's motivation. It's the classic race-based attempt to minimize this President's legitimacy, by dismissing his overwhelming voter mandate as, not really a mandate, but "because he's black."

Your unfounded logic can easily be applied to anyone. For example, Reagan was only elected because he reminded us of the kindly brain-addled grandfather. See? But my point is proven by Reagan being medically diagnosed as brain-addled. Or how about this one? People who voted for George W. Bush only did so because they wanted someone really dumb to be President so they could claim "see?, he's just like me."

he was elected in part because people saw him has an intelligent, BLACK man capable of obtaining the position of president. my point is that people who may not have voted, were otherwise undecided, or were already content with voting for the democratic party, had in their principles that it was time for the nation to elect a man of color into the office of president as a symbol changing times and the lessening of racial beliefs in society. the bandwagoning, again is irrelevent in terms of reasons for voting, but nonetheless provided an extra boost to his electorate because people wanted to be part of that. all of this in no way changes the fact, and is in part evidence to the fact that, race was a motivation in his election. not the sole reason, but certainly a motivation. in no way did I try to negate the legitimacy of his presidency.