> Statements like "He's the morally superior candidate only some people
> are too racist to see it", "Obama doesn't 'worship' money like Clinton",
> etc. are what separate Obamamaniacs from those who are simply hoping to
> see a Black man elected and thus see some tangible evidence of progress
> in race relations.
There's a third option: someone might simply believe Obama has better positions on the actual issues.
Personally, I don't see the logic behind your second choice. Virginia elected Doug Wilder in 1989, and New York just got David Paterson (by succession, granted, but he's prime for re-election). Wilder's election didn't change much then; we'll see if Paterson's ascension changes much now.