We saw this more in the south (the Bible belt, heh) than most other places.  I know it sounds stupid but I think this inherent distrust of outsiders goes back to the civil war and carpet baggers.

People grew up, my husband included, being taught not to trust strangers, especially if they talk funny and are outsiders.  He got it from his dad, and his dad from his dad, all the way back.  Florida may be transient, but there are enough locals and natives, and even other southerners who moved there, to carry that culture with it.  At least when I lived there.

The issue is one involving point of view and generalization. Racism is the use of an arbitrary characteristic (that is, not an essential characteristic like intelligence, but one that can be selected at random, like skin pigmentation or eye color) and using that characteristic for the purposes of acquiring or maintaining power. That's racism.

We can easily identify racism, if we really want to understand what's going on (not just protect our power). When we look at some of the actions of a number of people, like Rev. Wright, and then generalize to the population (that is, we take what we don't like about some individuals and then lump all people who share some arbitrary characteristic with the behavior of those individuals), we are engaging in racism. Not by choice, often, but by conditioning. We were trained to think in these absolute ways. And American politics doesn't help, because it is presented to us as a binary--one is either a member of this team or that team. If you're on that team, you think this, you act like this, you believe this. If your on this other team, you think this, you act like this, you believe this. This makes it easy to compete with the other team because you can easily identify the enemy (or so it would seem). The problem is the "left" or the problem is the "right." But these ideas, like the notion that people of color are perpetuating racism, is not rational. All Rebublicans are not religious nuts who claim to hear the voice of God and forge ahead with their gut instincts in lieu of empirical evidence for what they "believe." All democrats are not tree-hugging tax-and-spend nutcases who want to take away all the money from wealthy Americans and give it to illegal immigrants. These are juvenile generalizations that sway crowds of people to follow the lead of one or a handful of people who have an agenda which benefits themselves.

It is no more reasonable to point the finger an people of color because of what we see a few people of color doing than it is to point the finger at white people because of what we see a few white people doing. For every Rev. Wright we have a Jerry Falwell, who says things that are just as dispicable. Were we all clear thinking people all the time, we would realize that the issue is with the individuals and their claims. There is no causal connection to their race. Generalizing to race is a way of avoiding the actual issue. What someone says is dismissed because they belong to a certain group. The specifics of what they are saying, then, are pushed aside and replaced with broad generalizations. Saying that all Christians are mind-numbingly dumb and superstitious is the same as saying blacks claim that they're being treated the way they are because they're black.

What matters--or should matter--to reasonable, thinking people is what specifically is being said and the specific evidence for it. Not who is saying it or what group you attach them to. For example, when Jerry Brown (D) said America needed a flat tax, many Republicans said that he had inhaled too much pot. When Dick Army (R) said America needed a flat tax, many Republicans stood behind him and said it was a good idea. The specifics of issues like this reveal that the issue has been sidestepped by group-loyalty and blind-allegiance to some "group." It is clearly irrational and not in the best interests of sound government or positive social awareness. It only makes it easier for us to be manipulated.

And we cannot overlook pont of view. I am a pasty-white boy. I was raised in an upper-middle class family in an upper-class white neighborhood in the south. My family attended the Methodist Church. I am a heterosexual. If someone wanted to pick on "white" people or "middle-class" people or people from the south or "Methodists" or "heterosexuals," I could see that animosity, because it was directed toward me. But, like all of us, I was blind to bias and aggression directed toward other groups, because I wasn't in those groups and it take a great deal of effort and personal committment to others to find out what life is like for people who are not from the same backgroud as we are. Living in most predominately black neighborhoods in America is not the same as living in most predominately white neighborhoods. Being gay in America is not the same experience as being heterosexual. Being christian is not the same experience as being Jewish, or Muslim, or athiest. Being a man is not the same experience as being a woman. Groups that we "belong" to tend to welcome us and make us feel comfortable. Groups that we don't "belong" to tend to be wary and suspicious of us--no matter what those groups are. But the groups are almost always arbitrary. Even political parties are not based on centrally agreed upon ideas about how the world should be; they are more often based on which party a person's parents belonged to or a single issue that grabbed someone's attention and led them to a particular party. To assume that those individuals now embrace every idea that the group puts forth (as much as this helps the group gain power) is irrational.

You asked, "Are we ready for a black president?" I say the question is misphrased. The issue of "black" is irrelevant. It's like asking if we're ready for a president that eats sushi or a president that has brown eyes. The real issue is whether or not we are ready for a different type of president that what we've had for the past seven and a half years. That's what everyone should be asking themselves. Are we ready for a president who looks at facts rather than trusting his gut instinct over and over again even when his gut instict leads him astray? Are we ready for a president that realizes issues concerning America are complex and involve the ability to change and alter when new information presents intself rather than continuing on a course that has been unquestionably shown to be based on false information and wrong assumptions? Are we ready for a president who is actually committed to the rights of average Americans, rather than protecting big business at the expense of the working class? Are we ready for a president who will speak opening with the American people rather than stage his public appearances and prepare canned responses? Are we ready for a president who will hide government reports that reveal the failure of his (or her) policies? Are we ready for a president who will seek qualified council rather than appointing people to positions based on their loyalty to his preconcieved notions? Are we ready for a president who will generate international good-will an improve the reputation of America world-wide rather than lowering world opinion? Are we ready for a president who will generate admiration from other world leaders?  . . . and so on.

Setting up a discussion of this election as a contest between a black candidate and a white candidate is fallacious. You shouldn't vote for a candidate because he is black; neither should you vote for a candidate because he is white. You shouldn't vote for a candidate because she is a woman or because he is a man. You shouldn't vote for a candidate because he (or she) wears his (or her) religion on his (or her) sleeve, claiming that s/he is a Christian. Anyone can say anything. You need to vote based on what they do. McCain was a different man in 2000 than he is in 2008. In 2000, there were qualities to admire in him. But his party and group consciousness elected Bush over him because certain members of his party had seized control over what used to be the party for smaller government and controlled spending (just check out the growth of the government and the rabid spending that has taken place in the past seven and a half years and you'll see that the actions of this administration don't match their rhetoric ). If we had the same McCain as we had in 2000 (sans Palin), we might have a reasonable candidate. But we don't. McCain no longer speaks directly about issues that he understand. He cloaks his words. One example was when he was asked if prophylactics prevent the spread of disease and he refused to answer, saying only, "You got me there." An absurd response and one that indicates McCain is willing to put aside what he knows to be true to cater to what he percieves as a "base" that can get him elected. Not straight talk. And Palin . . . well, I know plenty of intelligent Republicans who consider her an insult to the party ticket. Not personally, of course, but based on her qualifications and her deep lack of awareness of world issues. Every indication since winning the party's nomination is that McCain will continue the same fear-mongering, secretive government that we have had for the past seven and a half years--the one, in case we forget, that doubled the price of gas, drastically increased unemployment, eroded our rights under the Constitution, kept Americans from fair access to information, damaged the environment, shifted wealth away from the middle class, took a balanced budget and created the largest deficit spending in the history of the United States, increased the national debt from seven trillion (and sinking) to over eleven trillion (with the new bailout), whose corporation-friendly policies have led to the current financial crisis, and who failed to avenge 9/11, failed to establish a stable democracy in Afghanistan, failed to weaken the Taliban, and were willing to sacrifice nearly 5,000 brave, American soldiers in Iraq rather than admit they might have misjudged the situation (you may recall Bush claimed they would probably only see one or two casualties in the entire war).

Are we ready for a black president? The question is irrelevant.

Are we ready for a president who has the intelligence and compassion to lead the most powerful and important country in the world? Yes.

Are we ready to put aside blind loyalties to groups to which we think we belong and vote for someone who actually speaks in specifics rather than generalities? yes.

Are we ready for a president who will not use fear to keep us obediant and unquestioning? Yes.

Are we ready for a president who is unafraid of open discourse and free speech? Yes.

Are we ready for a president who acknowleges that to be American is to be from numerous religions, cultures, races, genders? Yes.

Are we ready for a president who will NOT continue the same policies that we have experienced over the past seven and a half years? Yes.

I personally don't care if he is purple and a member of the Three Frog Party, as long as he exhibits the strength of character and intelligence to change the course of this country and use the country's resources for the benefit of all people.

Except for the last question, I'm afraid you are trying to paint Obama as something he is no where near being.