What I'm saying is better analysis of the situation than you can get from just about anywhere else.
.................
Well, I'm calling a halt; I've said all I can say.
I'm leaving out the rest of your counter-argument and letting the sentence quoted above stand alone because I think it sums up the true difference between us on this question. You're convinced that your analysis (which includes the remarkable claim that you know the motivations of most or maybe all BHO inclined voters) is clearer and better structured than most others. That leaves us with no where left to go except in an endless circle.
It's one thing for a Richard Feynman to express unshakable confidence that his understanding of quantum electrodynamics is better than anyone else's. It's quite another thing for one of us to unequivocally state we have nearly perfect knowledge of a complex political situation which is still in-motion and which, I feel, represents a new development in the art of perception management.
Also, I think the BHO issue (indeed, the entire US election) has taken up more than its fair share of bandwidth for a little while - though I'm sure there's a lot more to come.
...
One thing I'm noting: too deep a love of a well established ideological frame - for example: Marxism, or a 1960's formed view of how 'race relations' work within the US - is useful and sometimes beneficial but can, on the flip side, produce a fossilization of perspective. There are new things happening in the world which are neither completely nor adequately explained by these venerable conceptual tools which, I suspect, you're bringing to the table.
.d.