With Atlanta electing another Black mayor, in a string which dates back to 1973, the city seems to be embracing change.
No, not because the Kasim Reed beat Mary Norwood in a city that is roughly 56% Black to 36% white.
But because the margin of victory was only by about 1%.
Is it progress when one's race can no longer guarantee a victory in a region which has a history of race related problems?
but still close.
In a city which is 25% Black to 40% white - the margin of victory was 53% voting for Annise Parker and 47% voting for Gene Locke.
Even with the aid of social conservatives who may not have voted for an openly gay candidate (Parker), Gene Locke still fell short in his mayoral bid.
Is it progress when an openly gay woman can be elected as the mayor of a Southern city?
So what change is there in having cities whose majorities reflect the races of their respective elected mayors'?
Well, that's nothing new.
But the races weren't decided by race alone.
What is different is that in each of these traditional Southern cities, no white male candidates dominated the scene.
What is different is that the Rushes, Becks and O'Reillys don't seem to be the homogeneous prototypes or voices in today's political environment.
What is different is that, more and more, more races, genders and groups are being given a voice in the direction in which our country will go.
What is different is that being Black in Atlanta is no guarantee of being elected.
What is different is that an openly gay woman can be elected as the new mayor in Houston.
What is different is that more people are discovering that one's race, gender or sexual orientation are not the only factors to consider when choosing someone to do a job.