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

My opponent has accepted that TIME looks at the impact on history, which would mean if Obama has a bigger impact on history then TIME is correct in their choosing, Obama does surely qualify. My opponent concedes that winning an election is not an easy feat. Obama has forever changed American politics. How many other candidates raised $745 million, twice more then their own opponent? . http://www.chron.com... Obama used the internet to raise a great deal of that and grassroot campaigns to win. How many other candidates have done that? Obama has forever changed American politics whether we like it or not. . http://en.wikipedia.org... The choices of YOU and the American Soldier were abstract choices that TIME is famous for simply because TIME felt they would influence history the most. Just like the American Women in 1975, Baby Boomers in 1966, The Computer in 1982, the Endangered Earth in 1988, and The American Fighting-Man in 1950. What my opponent fails to tell you is the abstract choices are pivotal to the time period. 2003 was the beginning of the Iraq war, 1950 was the Korean War, Computer was coming into it's own in 1982, etc,etc. My opponent also fails to mention that in 2005 that The Good Samaritans won, who were only represented by Bill Gates, Melinda Gates, and Bono. Again, an abstract choice. My opponent also concedes being the first African American President of the United States of America is special. Then goes and says he wasn't. Since my opponent already conceded that Obama was the first African American President then it makes his whole other point invalid. Furthermore, the men my opponent named were white and when people voted for them at the time; it was unknown that was part of them IF it was. So voting for them while not knowing that supposedly and voting for Obama while he was African American is two different things. As for Thurgood Marshall, he was passed over for Lyndon Johnston in 1967 (the year he became a member of the Supreme Court). With the War in Vietnam among several other things going on in the world, TIME felt the influence of the president was greater then this historical moment. Furthermore, I ask my opponent to look at the list of winners and before 1967 tell me how many African Americans were on the list. The only one I can see is MLK Jr in 1963 for his March on Washington and his now famous "I have a Dream" speech. Outside of abstract choices, how many other African Americans other then MLK Jr have been chosen for this award? Far as I can see that would be one, Barack Obama. My point of name recoginition and the celebration videos (which my opponent does not refute) is that Obama has more influence around the world (which my opponent said was untrue) and more standing. My opponent tries to say who has more influence and yet leaves out how people feel. If there was a worldwide election between Barack Obama and Sarkozy, there is no doubt in my mind that Obama would win easily. Name recoginition is influence when it comes to a politician. To compare scientists to politicians is apple and oranges and my opponent knows this while trying to unfairly make such a assertion. To further prove my point, TIME chose Sarah Palin as a runner-up and yet she was only a vice presidental candidate Why would she be in the running? Because of the amount of influence she had and used whether you liked her or not. My opponent fails to realize that the people are celebrating in the video because this is and was a change for America. It wasn't in the political arena, but rather the music arena. The Beatles did prove such change, redefining the rock genre and selling the most albums ever in the United States along with over a billion records worldwide. To further prove my point, here is list from one of the greatest music magazines that they top. . http://www.rollingstone.com... Obama is a politician and already has changed America along with the world. The BBC poll showed how people in the world liked Obama and would respect America better simply because he was elected. The fact that the US has millions of more people, so obviously Obama would get a higher number of votes WAS EXACTLY MY POINT. I would like to thank my opponent for proving my point. Therefore, Obama already has more influence in the world then Sarkozy. My opponent obviously finds Sarkozy higher % of votes to matter but fails to know the way France votes that only two parties end up voting in the final round of the election. Sarkozy only secured 31% of his nation's vote in the first round, 31% in the U. S would be an embarassment. My opponent also fails to see logic when he says 96% percent of Blacks voted for Obama so therefore race helped Obama. African Americans have voted for the most part Democrat more and more in the past elections. As demonstrated when a white man, John Kerry who was the Democratic candidate in 2004 won 88% of the Black vote but also less votes then Obama. . http://en.wikipedia.org... My opponent goes on to try and refute my 4 points: 1. ) Obama has already led a campaign that has gone to unimaginable heights and is clear on what he wants to do. He has been a Senator, and is clear on his policies. 2. ) Obama has acted outside the box, has my opponent forgot Sarkozy is a politician too? Obama picked the best people but outside-the-box of Liberal and Conservative America. Hillary Clinton fought to just about the bitter end, she in fact stated at one point she was not interested in a cabinet position. So my opponent idea is highly false. My opponent concedes Gates and Chu are smart choices and as I have shown, are outside-the-box. The same argument my opponent applies to Obama could apply to Sarkozy. 3/4. ) Again, look at the poll and he already has. Not almost any Democrat who could have been elected would of had raised our popularity to the level Obama has. My opponent fails to see the amount of hope Obama inspires in people. Obama being elected has improved our popularity, the BBC poll doesn't lie. Until Obama screws up in the first crisis like my opponent implies to think then you cannot say he has made it worse. Sarkozy, on the other hand has not changed France's power considerably. What has Sarkozy done to elevate France? I ask my opponent to find such things and not merely quote things from wikipedia. He helped freed some hostages, the US is not the only one to blame for the crisis; Sarkozy must take the bad with the good. Sarkozy has helped set a goal, and stated intentions; isn't this the same thing my opponent blasts Obama for? Doesn't sound like action to me. What I have proven: Obama's influence on history will be greater Obama has already done more then win a campaign Time makes abstract choices and Obama is the second African American to win the TIME POTY award Name Recognition is an important criteria for politicians. Obama has brought change in America and throughout the world Obama is more deserving then Sarkozy Obama is a leader, outside-the-box thinker My opponent makes claims that hurt his own argument because they can and are easily applied to Sarkozy. Obama has won, that alone has improved our reputation. Sarkozy has done little more then proposals, state ideas and goals during his time in France and the EU. This is exactly what my opponent blasts Obama for. To find Sarkozy better is hypocrisy. My opponent says he has no bias. However, Republican arguments (the leadership one for example) have slipped into his own. His profile shows he is a Republican. Though he may not try; he has bias against Barack Obama. . http://www.debate.org...