The problem is that you guys are once again going for the "let's use two different definitions of a word and then throw everyone in both definitions together" technique... a technique that is only useful for political spin, not for debate or solution.

One definition, low on the list... and frankly I think it's only there due to common usage... has something to do with the rather vague notion of something that treats races differently.
The top definition and the one most often implied is the belief in the inherent superiority of one race over another.
The two defintions are not equal.
Affirmative action fits in to the vague definition but is in OPPOSITION to the more specific and accurate definition.
Proponents of affirmative action do not believe in the superiority of one race over another. They, in fact believe that the status quo offers privelage to one race and the only way to even it out is to show limited preference to others.

I'm not a big fan of affirmative action, as I think it is mostly counterproductive to its own goals. But to claim the goals of affirmative action as racist is the worst kind of intellectual dishonesty.
And you wonder why the debate is never civil? What do you expect when all you can come up with is "No- you're the racist"?

__________________
"Man lives in the sunlit world of that which he believes to be reality. But unseen by most is an underworld, a place that is just as real... but not as brightly lit... A DARK SIDE!"
-opening from Tales From the Darkside