Barack Obama should not have been Time's Person of the Year 2008

I accept that TIME also looks at the impact on history. However, I stand that Obama still does not qualify. My opponent begins his argumentation by saying that winning an election is not an easy feat. I agree. However, winning an election does not qualify someone as the most influential person that year. 2006 Person of the Year was YOU. The average citizenry has never won an election. 2005 was Bill Gates, Melinda Gates, and Bono. They never won elections. 2003 was the American Soldier. Same. So we must look at Obama's other achievements. He only has one that could qualifies him as influential. Being the first African American President of the United States of America. Is this special? Yes it is. However, Thurgood Marshall was the first African American in the Supreme Court. He was never TIME's Person of the Year. And Obama obviously is not the first African head executive in the world. Furthermore, he is not even the first African American president. Thomas Jefferson was 1/4 African, Andrew Jackson was 1/2, Calvin Coolidge was 1/2, Dwight D. Eisenhower was 1/4. The fact that Obama is African American and won an election is not an accomplishment worthy of Person of the Year. My opponent then continues by saying Obama has higher name recognition than Sarkozy. Who knows Jeff Bezos? Andy Grove? Dr. David Ho? These are People of the Year (1999, 97, 96 respectively). Name recognition is not a TIME criteria for influence. Obama's name is known because it was highly publicized in the election. I would bet that John McCain's name is just as recognizable. My opponent then shows videos of people across the world celebrating Obama's victory. . http://www.youtube.com... A Beatle's Concert - People are celebrating because they feel this is a chance for America to change. But the problem is, it hasn't yet. Obama promised change, and I hope he brings it. But he also promised line-item vetoes (which are unconstitutional). He is a politician. Until he actually enacts change, until he actually changes our foreign policy, he has not influenced the world. My opponent then uses the voting margins between Sarkozy and Obama to say Obama was more influential. First of all, The US has millions of more people, obviously Obama would get a higher number of votes. Second, Sarkozy received a higher percentage of votes (if vote counts matter towards influence). Next, my opponent says Obama had a problem with race. 96% percent of blacks voted for Obama! And the same percentage of whites voted for Obama as Clinton! Obviously, race did not hinder Obama; it helped him. . http://www.politico.com... My opponent goes through 4 of the many reasons Sarkozy should be person of the year: 1. Obama is NOT a clear leader. What has he lead? Has he lead this country yet? Was he a mayor? A governor? He has no leadership experience and is not yet a clear leader. I hope he becomes one, but he isn't yet. 2. Outside the box. Alright, Obama is a politician. He picked the best people, not outside-the-box choices. His Chief of Staff (Emanuel) has great experience. Clinton as a choice could very easily have been a dealing between the two for Hillary to drop out. Gates and Chu are smart choices, too. I am not saying smart choices are a bad thing. However, they are not warrants for outside-the-box thinking. 3. Obama has not elevated America to a respected country yet. People now look at America better, yes. But he has yet to, once again, actually do anything! President Bush damaged our reputation terribly. Almost any Democrat who could have been elected would have raised our popularity. What happens when Obama faces a crisis? Our reputation hopefully will change for the better. But from the same article, "[t]his is no guarantee that he will be a success as president. Jimmy Carter understood the US's reduced position in the post-Vietnam world, and he refused to dictate to the world. Nowadays most Americans regard him as a failure. " Until Obama makes an action that improves our popularity, he can not have repaired it. Why? He can very easily make it even worse after the first crisis. Sarkozy, on the other hand, has improved France's power around the world through his actions. Not campaign promises. 4. What Sarkozy has done as president of the EU Because of Sarkozy, "you felt Europe had a voice, a presence and a policy. It has not always been so when a crisis has occurred. " . http://www.time.com... He has worked multilaterally with the US and Britain to solve the world's economic crisis. The crisis was caused in the US; Sarkozy can not be blamed for it. President Sarkozy began negotiations with Colombian president ï¿½lvaro Uribe and the left-wing guerrilla FARC, regarding the release of hostages held by the rebel group. Furthermore, he announced on 24 July 2007, that French and European representatives had obtained the extradition of the Bulgarian nurses detained in Libya to their country. On 8 June 2007, during the 33rd G8 summit in Heiligendamm, Sarkozy set a goal of reducing French CO2 emissions by 50% by 2050 in order to prevent global warming. On 21 July 2008, the French parliamentpassed constitutional reforms which Sarkozy had made one of the key pledges of his presidential campaign. These changes, if finalized, introduce a two-term limit for the presidency, give parliament a veto over some presidential appointments, allow the president to address parliament in-session, and end the president's right of collective pardon. President Sarkozy has publicly stated his intention to attain EU approval of a progressive energy package before the end of his EU Presidency. This energy package would clearly define climate change objectives for the EU and hold members to specific reductions in emissions. This proposal demonstrates Sarkozy's commitment to international collaboration in the face of climate change. In further support of his collaborative outlook on climate change, Sarkozy has led the EU into a partnership with China. . http://en.wikipedia.org... What I have proven: Winning an Election does not constitute TIME's Person of the Year Race has not influenced TIME before Name Recognition is not a criteria People support Obama because they want change, but he has not brought any change yet Obama is not more deserving than Sarkozy Sarkozy is a leader, outside-the-box thinker Through Sarkzoy's actions, he has improved France's reputation Obama has not made any action's to improve our reputation Sarkozy has had a huge influence on France, the EU, and the world Obama has not All Obama has done was win an election. He has no accomplishments other than this that merit such a prestigious award.