Well, yes. He probably is. But in benign way, not in a way that deserves pilloring.
His "racism" might be best defined as that "soft bigotry of lower expectations", a term that President Bush used to characterize the direction of his education policy.
In that sense, it isn't functionally different from the bigotry shown by "sophisticated, well-educated urban folk" for "blue collar workers" or "rural bumpkins". It's a distorted view born of stereotype, generally ill-considered and inaccurate.
Not to mention mildly offensive.
But it isn't anything to expend any emotion or action upon. If anything, the burden lies with the biased -- not his target.
The Democrats and the media are thus wildly overplaying the regrettably stupid slip of the tongue. It's as if they themselves don't suffer from the same kind of "soft bigotry" -- toward conservatives, "rednecks", "manual laborers" and blacks!
Lott's mouth, though, has been an ongoing source of embarrassment to the party. This time, he really stepped in it. And, left in a position of leadership, he will doubtless do it again.
Parading his "soft bigotry" in public, with the cameras rolling, was an incredibly idiotic event. It's not his "racism" that is a problem (except for him), it is his IQ. And that affects the Senate, the party and the country. Anybody who makes these kinds of mistakes is simply not fit for a leadership position.
Lott needs to be taken out of the game and led to the sidelines. Not because he's a "racist", in the true meaning of the term, but because he's not equipped for the job he occupies.