still, his opinion that racists vote for and against him based upon race (the definition of racism in fact),, is true

Yep, black racists voted for Obama because he is black.

and some who wanted to believe they aren't racist voted for him and against him,,because he is black

It doesn't help to make unproven assumptions as to why people didn't vote for Obama.

yet people do it all day long on these forums,,

like stating racists voted for Obama because he is black

because many things cant be 'proven' on this board,,,,,

Finally, found the article,, here is the relevant portion:

Obama'��s election was one of the great markers in the black freedom struggle. In the electoral realm, ironically, the country may be more racially divided than it has been in a generation. Obama lost among white voters in 2012 by a margin greater than any victor in American history.

The popular opposition to the Administration comes largely from older whites who feel threatened, underemployed, overlooked, and disdained in a globalized economy and in an increasingly diverse country. Obama'��s drop in the polls in 2013 was especially grave among white voters.

(CONTEXT IS HERE IN RESPONSE TO THE WRITERS INTRODUCTION OF 'BLACK FREEDOM and 'RACIAL DIVIDE')

"��There'��s no doubt that there'��s some folks who just really dislike me because they don'��t like the idea of a black President,"�� Obama said. "��Now, the flip side of it is there are some black folks and maybe some white folks who really like me and give me the benefit of the doubt precisely because I'��m a black President."
The latter group has been less in evidence of late.

"��There is a historic connection between some of the arguments that we have politically and the history of race in our country, and sometimes it'��s hard to disentangle those issues,"�� he went on.
"��You can be somebody who, for very legitimate reasons, worries about the power of the federal government --- that it'��s distant, that it'��s bureaucratic, that it'��s not accountable --- ��and as a consequence you think that more power should reside in the hands of state governments.

(SO, OUR RACIAL HISTORY AND OUR POLITICS ARE HARD TO SEPERATE, YET PEOPLE HAVE LEGITIMATE CONCERNS ABOUT BOTH)

But what'��s also true, obviously, is that philosophy is wrapped up in the history of states'�� rights in the context of the civil-rights movement and the Civil War and Calhoun. There'��s a pretty long history there. And so I think it'��s important for progressives not to dismiss out of hand arguments against my Presidency or the Democratic Party or Bill Clinton or anybody just because there'��s some overlap between those criticisms and the criticisms that traditionally were directed against those who were trying to bring about greater equality for African-Americans. The flip side is I think it'��s important for conservatives to recognize and answer some of the problems that are posed by that history, so that they understand if I am concerned about leaving it up to states to expand Medicaid that it may not simply be because I am this power-hungry guy in Washington who wants to crush states'�� rights but, rather, because we are one country and I think it is going to be important for the entire country to make sure that poor folks in Mississippi and not just Massachusetts are healthy."��


(SO PROGRESSIVES SHOULDNT BLINDLY DISMISS CRITICISM OF PRESIDENTS OR GOVERNMENT AND CONSERVATIVES SHOULDNT DISMISS THE CONCERNS OF THE PRESIDENTS OR GOVERNMENTS)



,,,no 'race card' ,, just a fairly balanced commentary

sorry, the source
http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2014/01/27/140127fa_fact_remnick?currentPage=all

You right my Sistah.

All dem whipcracking saltines and Unca Toms who didn't vote the big O is all racilists.