In 2000 Gore won 42% of the white vote and 90% of the black vote. In 2012, Obama won 39% of the white vote and 93% of the black vote.
So at most, Obama got an extra 3% of the black vote on account of his race, and lost at most 3% of the white vote. So on the face of it, a wash. Of course, the white electorate is over five times larger than the black electorate, so that's really -2.2%, +0.4%.
Even if Obama had performed at Bill Clinton's historically low 83% of the black vote, his popular vote total would have been only 1.3% lower. This may have been enough to make him lose the popular vote, but it would not have been enough to make him lose the electoral college (Mitt Romney would have needed to win the popular vote by 3% to have won the electoral college).
It's a little elevated but not much, I would guess any "reverse racism" going on is probably proportional or lesser than the people who didn't vote for Obama because he was black. Recall that black voters historically align with the Democrats in the 80-90% range anyways:
Even though the percent might not be much higher, it's really about turnout, not percent won. Twice as many blacks showed up to the polls for Obama than for Clinton. Obama was a "movement" candidate in the black community.
However, I'm sympathetic to your argument - I think blacks turning out for Obama was more akin to Irish Catholics showing up for Kennedy, rather than whites showing up for George Wallace - more of a pride thing, and a symbolic triumph over past discrimination, etc.
