I don't think the overt ones are the people that Cater was referring to. It is the more covert and unconscious form.
I keep asking the same questions, but have yet to receive an answer from anyone. When Clinton was campaigning toward health care reform in past years, did you see anyone parading around with signs of her dressed as a witch doctor or sporting a Hitler-esque mustache? When Bush spoke to school children, when Regan spoke to school children, do you remember public outcries of "indoctination" from parents, and people keeping their children home from school as a result? When FDR campaigned for social security, did people take to the streets shouting "Marxist!" and "Socialist!"
The vast majority of what Obama has done in office is not so very different from the very things done by past presidents. It is the intensity of the reaction that is so different. It is the deliberate lies being perpetrated that is so different. It is the selfishness and greed that is so apparent that is different. It is the ad hominem attacks that are so different. Even during Nixon's presidency, and all of his sordid history and lack of public support, it did not get this ugly.
That is not to say that all of the intensity and the outright hatred we are seeing is solely based on racism. But it most certainly is a variable that has added explosiveness to the situations.
I remember people calling Hillary Clinton a socialist. I doubt there were any witch doctor signs, but I thought we were talking about the covert racism that Jimmy Carter knows must be there. The sign is wrong and probably the result of the few outright racists or some morons who lack any good taste, but it's hardly proof of widespread unconscious racism. The Hitler mustache Obama signs are from LaRouche Democrats who are upset because they want single-payer now. The Democrats did criticize Bush's speech to school children to the point of demanding a GAO investigation into its legality after the fact. I don't know if any of FDR's critics painted him as a Marxist or a socialist. I can't blame anyone for thinking Obama might have socialist tendencies. After all, his voting record was to the
left of a self-avowed socialist in the Senate, Bernie Sanders. Personally, I don't think he fits the definition of a socialist. I think he believes government is the answer to all problems and he wants to centralize as much power in Washington as possible using whatever means is most politically expedient. As such, I think a more general word- statist- is a good description.
Now that I've answered your questions, I should point out that they aren't all that relevant. Yes, you can pick out things where the opposition's reactions are different than they've been in the past (or only perceived as such). However, at the same time, I can point out numerous conditions that are unique and different from the past that would lead to the reactions we see today. Sure, the Clintons proposed similar legislation in the 90s (with similar unpopularity), but today, we have TARP, historically high deficits, majority government ownership of GM and Chrysler, a non-stimulating $787 billion stimulus, already existing entitlement programs going bankrupt, economy-crushing cap and trade, etc.. Health care reform is happening with all these other things in the backdrop. Did Bush send out a study guide with the creepy suggestion that teachers have kids write letters about how they can help the President (something which concerned my sister who holds no racial animus, overtly or covertly)? Did the Clintons try to push through an overhaul of a gargantuan and hugely complex sector of the economy in a matter of weeks before anyone could actually understand it? Did they repeatedly lie about it being deficit neutral? Did the political elites malign everyday Americans coming out to oppose the reform by calling them un-American, evil-mongers, brown shirts, the mob, astroturfers, etc.?
Times are different. Things change. As such, reactions to those things change and there's enough going on to reasonably explain those reactions without having to jump to racism as a significant factor (especially since much of the anger is directed towards non-black figures such as Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid). Doing so ignores Occam's razor. The more relevant question is this: If Hillary Clinton were president doing the exact same things, would the reaction be the same? Although one would have to look into an alternate universe to know for sure, I think it would. I know for sure my reaction would be the same. Probably the only reaction that would be different would come from the other side- instead of yelling "Racists!!!" they'd be yelling "Sexists!!!"