Capitalizing fact doesn't make it any more true, and y'know, I was alive back then and paying attention to the news; aside from the birther stuff, the scale of anti-Obama racial stuff was quite low.

It's no good going back and analyzing what happened then with the perspective of culture wars of today, because today wasn't then.

Maybe we've forgotten. Maybe some of us weren't old enough to remember. But we can go back and look at indicators like what the perceived state of race relations was, and Obama's election isn't even a blip (the article points out the actual turning point): https://news.gallup.com/poll/318851/perceptions-white-black-relations-sink-new-low.aspx

Maybe even though it didn't cause a blip in race relation perceptions, the Tea Party gathered all the racists without making more or making relations worse? No: there were a few racists but they were actively shunned early on (see, for instance, https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2010/08/five-myths-about-the-tea-party.html). And in the wake of that, the first black Senator was elected from the South: Tea Party-endorsed Republican Tim Scott (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tim_Scott)!

In light of that, you need a lot more than caps to make your point that it was actually a racist reaction to Obama.

Now, this doesn't mean that the Tea Party was a good thing! Far from it--and the evidence-denying populism that it started did, I would argue, enable later more-racially-antagonistic behavior. But it wasn't a reaction to Obama being black, and it wasn't racist itself, as far as the evidence seems to show.

You have some other points which are good, and some other bad ones too, but this one is far enough off that it's worth pointing out.