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

My opponent beings with the argument that Obama's fund raising has influenced politics because he raised so much money. This proves nothing about Obama's influence, for politicians have been raising money on larger scales for decades. Obama has not influenced how politicians fund raise. He has simply continued the already established paradigm. He then uses Obama's use of the internet as changing American politics. Again, this does nothing to show Obama's influence. In fact, it's an argument for the Internet's influence. Maybe it should have been TIME's person of the year. The internet was effective because of the recent up rise of internet use. It would not have worked 4 years ago. The, as I said, should go to the Internet. My opponent then admits that winning an election is not an achievement worthy of Person of the Year by listing the multiple abstract choices. He does nothing to defend that winning an election is an achievement worthy of the title. My arguments stand, and he loses on that argument alone. Next, my opponent mentions that Thurgood Marshall was passed over for LBJ because of the war in Vietnam. He said "TIME felt the influence of the president was greater then this historical moment." That even furthers the point that Obama being African American does not warrant TIME's award. Why isn't General David Petraeus, the mastermind behind the successful surge that turned Iraq around, Person of the Year. If wars trump over racial achievements, why does Obama deserve it? My opponent further loses this round when he points out MLK is the only African American Person of the Year. What about the many many other achievements made by minorities? Why aren't they recognized by TIME? Because TIME has never believed that race has any ground on selected Person of the Year. My opponent again says that name recognition is a warrant for high levels of influence that would merit Person of the Year. He says that name recognition is important to politicians, so it must be a sign of influence. President Bush has extremely high name recognition but his influence is definitely smaller than Harry Reid who has much less name recognition. He then says Obama would win an election against Sarkozy. This is pure speculation with no facts behind it. Millions of Europeans would say that is wrong. He then states that Sarah Palin was a runner-up because of her influence. First, we are not debating if Sarah Palin should be Person of the Year. Secondly, my opponent doesn't provide why Sarah Palin's influence was from name-recognition. My opponent has failed to prove why name recognition equals influence of the same degree. He has further failed to prove why name recognition alone merits Person of the Year. As of now, Obama still has no reason to be Person of the Year. My opponent still does not understand that Obama has not changed America at all. He has provided a venue for change, an opportunity for change. People are celebrating for the HOPE of change. The Beatles were not a change when they formed the band, but when they acted, when they performed. Action is the key to change. Obama has not acted. The BBC poll shows that people would respect America not because of Obama, but because it was not McCain. It was highly publized that McCain was a "third Bush" (I am not saying this is true). People gained respect for America because we did not elect another "Bush." If Hilary had won, it would have been the same. If Obama's actions result in some negative effect, people will not have more respect for America. TIME is giving Obama the benefit of the doubt that he will be a good leader. THis is wrong. There are two points that need to be clarified. My opponent believed that Obama's vote count in America means his is more influential than Sarkozy. Now first, Sarkozy has gained influence since his election, and the whole European Union is under his leadership. Second, America does not have a proportionate election like France. If we did, Obama would have split his votes among Clinton, Edwards, Biden, Dole, McCain, Huckabee, Giuliani, Romney, etc. He would not have received over 50% of the votes because Clinton herself would have stole about 20-25%. You can not compare to completely different electoral processes and say one final vote tally is most influential than one preliminary vote tally. I will agree that the Black Vote is highly favorable to the Democrats. But there is a huger difference between 88% and 96%. That means only 4% of all the Black Vote was against Obama. This obviously helped him. And if anyone still believes that 96% is typical for a Democrat that is alright too. It just further proves my original point that his race did not hurt him. It may not have helped him, but if you remember that Bill Clinton received the same percent of the White Vote as Obama, it did not hurt him. Now onto the 4 particular points 1.) Obama is not clear on his policies, and he has no leadership. He is neither "clear" nor a "leader." His policies have changed multiple times, he redefined what "upper class" was about 4 times within two weeks. His ultimate goal is "change." That is not a clear policy. He also has no leadership experience. I challenge my opponent to find leadership experience for Obama that will define him as a leader. 2.) Sarkozy is not consider outside-the-box for smart cabinet choices, but for controversial actions that have yielded postive results. Everyone was predicted Hillary would have a cabinet position on the news. Hundres of people still speculate that a deal was struck. If that is true, OF COURSE Clinton would she wasn't interested until she accepted/ How are Gates and Chu outside the box? Is Chu outside the box because he is Asian? 3/4.) Obama has inspired hope! Exactly! Has he done anything to make the world better? Make America better? Influence anything? No! He provides an oppourtunity for change, but he has made no change. Until he does, he does not deserve any special awards or titles. Sarkozy is the president of the EU. He has increased France relations with all of Europe, especially Britain, and the United States. The difference between Obama and Sarkozy is that Sarkozy made promises, has pushed those promises, and forced action to occur towards those goals. Obama has made promises....and nothing else. So finally, what I have proven. TIME does not look at race for Person of the Year Name recognition is not a sign of higher influence Obama has done nothing but promise change He has no qualifications for Person of the Year Sarkozy has multiple reasons to be Person of the Year Obama is not clear Obama is not a leader My opponent concludes by saying I deserve to lose because I am obviously biased agianst Obama. I have no made any ungrounded attacks. Since Obama has not taken office yet, it is impossible for him to have any presidential achievement. Anyone, democrat, republican, libertarian, would acknowledge that. If I were a democrat my argument would be the same. I am not discrediting him for being a Democrat. What my opponent is essentially saying is that my political party makes me not entitled to an educated opinion. I urge everyone to vote as unbiasedly as possible, whether you voted for or against Obama. Ask yourself if he really deserved Person of the Year, and by reading this debate, the answer is clear he did not.