For people who see effect rather than cause, the most racist sins of the United States today are the drug war and the war in Afghanistan. I will argue with the idea that the US's foreign wars are racist because the US fights wherever war is the most effective way to preserve or expand its power.
But even when you factor in class, the drug war disproportionately punishes black folks.
Therefore, choosing a presidential candidate should be easy for antiracists: The only major candidate opposed to the drug war and the war in Afghanistan is Ron Paul:
Ron Paul: Get out of Afghanistan! End War Profits and Corporatism!
Ron Paul: End the War on Drugs!
But antiracists say he's racist, so they won't support him.
Because I often fail to connect the dots for people who disagree with me, I'll make this as simple as I can: Antiracists prefer an antiracist whose policies imprison and kill people of color to a racist whose policies would free and save people of color.
As usual with people suffering from cognitive dissonance, antiracists hear words and can't see deeds.
Does this mean I support Paul? He's a conservative capitalist and I'm a socialist, so the answer's no. But if he was the Republican nominee and I accepted the logic of voting for the lesser evil, choosing between Obama and someone who wants greater limits on war and imprisonment would not be hard.
However, I rejected lesser-evilism long ago. Where people choose the lesser evil, the greater good can never win.
ETA: Malcolm X on lesser-evilism: “If you put the Democrats first, they will put you last.”