I'm not sure what you mean when you say that "it is a country based on white suprimist [sic] ideology." Care to clarify? Do you mean in terms of slavery? Jim Crow? Because those parts of our history, while significant, do not equal the whole of American history or the basis of our political institution. Or do you mean the socioeconomic disparities that remain between white and non-white communities? Because those boundaries are a lot more fuzzy and complicated than your statement accounts for. Can't fairly summarize by just saying, "America is based on white supremacy." When I hear "country based on white supremacist ideology," I think, like, Nazi Germany or Apartheid South Africa. Do we have a ways to go here? Of course, always. But, I mean, come on.

In regards to how this informs Pres. Obama's actions- I think there's a difference between suggesting that some of his decisions are tempered by the consideration of a racially-charged history (for instance, not acting "too black" in front of mainly white electoral rallies, not acting "too white" in front of black electoral rallies), and suggesting that his actions are directly "tempered by racism." One suggests political acumen in a world that's not really post-racial; the other implies some sort of weird power holding the president in its thrall. Also, there is no factual or even, to the best of my knowledge, indirect circumstantial evidence of the latter.

However. Given the nuances. I can comfortably say that chalking the whole of a President's executive policy up to "he's a successful black man, ergo he doesn't want to rock the boat/does everything by the book/accepts received wisdom" comes off as hilariously patronizing and, yes, racist. And trying to paint it in pseudo-progressive terms ("our country is founded on white supremacy") doesn't really justify the caricature you're hoping to paint.