I get the impression that there will be Black people voting for Mr. Obama because he is black and it is a milestone to have a black president (I am sure many white people will vote for him for the same reason). But isn't there a bit of a double standard here, because if a white person said that they were voting for McCain because he was white, there would be an uproar?
This isn't a mere substitution of color, like preferring a red shirt over a blue shirt.
Voting for Obama "because he is black" is a vote to break down a barrier and to expand opportunity; voting for McCain "because he is white" is a vote to preserve that barrier. (You've acknowledged this in calling an Obama election a 'milestone'.)
The former is an admirable goal. But it's a flimsy reason to choose a president; would these same people have voted for Alan Keyes or Flavor Flav? On the other hand, the latter is rightfully scorned and
worthy of uproar. That's not a double standard.
As a general rule, I give latitude to barrier-breaking candidates for public office -- not just racial and gender minorities, but deaf candidates and candidates with other disabilities, candidates from under-represented occupations and economic classes, and openly gay candidates. And I'd certainly feel comfortable using one of these traits as a "tie-breaker" between two candidates, both of whom I supported. (I think Pat Schroeder had the potential to be a better candidate than Mike Dukakis, for example.)
But I wouldn't use race as my
first criterion for choosing a candidate, and I hope the numbers of people -- on both sides of the aisle -- who would do so are smaller than the traditional media is portraying.