First, I appreciate your reasonable reply. I'll respond to your specific points:

> This assertion that Hillary Clinton is racist

Note that I didn't make that assertion myself; the GP spoke about people who "maybe think Trump is a racist," and so I pointed out people who may think the same about Clinton.

> seems to reply on accepting as fact that the goal of Planned Parenthood is the extermination of the African American population

There are three relevant questions here:

1. What was the original goal of the organization?
2. What is the current goal of the organization?
3. What is the current effect of the organization?

The answer to the first question is a historical one, and the record seems clear that its original purpose was explicitly to reduce the black population.

The answer to the second question is debatable since 1) it depends on whose words one takes at face value, and 2) it likely does not have a singular goal.

The answer to the third question is, in some ways, complex, and might be better stated as asking what the current effects are (plural). However, looking at the statistics provides an unambiguous picture as to which racial populations are more reduced by the organization's efforts. It is a simple fact that more black pregnancies are aborted, and that more PP abortion clinics are in low-income, minority areas. Therefore it is a simple statistical fact that PP reduces or controls the black population more than the white population.

>and that Clinton's support of the organization is evidence that she must support that ideal.

Only she can say for certain which ideals she supports. However, it is a fact that this organization which she supports reduces the black population more than it reduces the white population. Therefore, even if she were not racist in intention, her policies are racist in effect.

Therefore we are left with this question: Why does she support a policy which supports a racist organization? Does she think that there are benefits which outweigh racist side-effects? If so, she certainly wouldn't admit it, as that would be political suicide. Does she not realize that the effect of the organization is racially biased? If so, that would call into question her competency. Or does she think that the current political climate makes it necessary for her to support it to win the election? If so, that would call into question her integrity.

I don't like Trump, and I don't want him to be our President. But regarding the question of racism, the answer seems clear to me: if either candidate is a racist, it would be the one whose policies effectively reduce the black population. After all, what is more racist than preventing members of a race from existing.

> In any case, the argument you've laid out here (but haven't really supported) for Clinton being the more racist of the two is not very compelling, unless one is already extremist enough...

Here you tip your hand and show your own extreme bias. According to you, anyone who thinks Clinton is closer to being a racist than Trump is an "extremist." This is not reasonable or civil.

> you're only preaching to the choir and not likely to convince anyone.

I agree completely. Few people are both convincible and reasonable. Few can admit to their intellect the flaws of their dear leaders and adjust their conclusions accordingly. And contemporary media increasingly exacerbates this problem. I'm afraid we are living in interesting times.