Sociologists in the 50s came up with the word "homophily". It means like likes like. When Clinton analyses a vote in terms of homophily, he analyses a vote in terms of homophily. But when that analysis is experienced by a person of an analyzed race, it can feel racist. So it is. Bill Clinton and the body of his work is not racist. But if one honestly feels that he is or has done something or failed to do something, then that feeling is an immovable object and Bill Clinton is, according to that feeling, a racist.
Barack Obama and his silver tongue are also caught in racism. If the "typical white" feels being herded into a category by being herded into a category, then that, too is racism. If we live in a racist society we are all racist, so the word is thereby rendered useless. The motives and feelings of another are not knowable. The "typical white man" like Bill Clinton does not feel racist while analyzing voting patterns - but his comments may stir that latent function and it is felt as racism. His motive is to win. The body of his work would not show him as a racist--indeed, just the opposite. But if people are trained to view white men and white words as racist, it will be felt as racism.
Racism is coming from one and only one point of view, based on race, when life and creativity is so much more than that.