Obama's father was from a quite homogeneous area, whereas Booker's parents were not from there. Most African-Americans with roots in the country dating back into slavery do not have a solid African or black bloodline. Some of Booker's white ancestors wouldn't be recorded, because the slave masters didn't claim their children with slaves. For the most part, Obama is blacker than most African-Americans by genealogy.
Oh, I'm aware that there's plenty of non-African ancestry in most African-Americans, but "Obama is blacker than most African-Americans by genealogy"? You mean *most* African-Americans are actually less than 50% African by ancestry? That would surprise me. I mean, even if there was a massive amount of cross-racial child creation, I'd assume that below a certain threshold of African ancestry (20%? 25%?) many (most?) would just identify as white. And so they wouldn't even be counted as African-American in surveys.
What I meant was that Obama has more of a direct link to African lineage than most African-Americans who have been here for centuries. That would have been the better way to phrase it.
