Yes, it is, if the intent of the crime is not aimed at specifically one person, but at a broader group of people such as a race, nationality, or religion with the intent to discourage these people from exercising their basic civil, social, or economic rights. I know that’s a nitpicking definition, but there are people who have done that in the past, such as killing persons attempting to register black voters in the South.
The problem is not that there is a definition of hate crime, but it gets thrown out as a threat against people who merely express their distaste at the activities of other groups. (You don’t like lutefisk? That’s a hate crime against Lutherans!) (You don’t like same sex marriage? You are expressing a hate crime!)
The purpose of hate crime legislation should not be not to chill lawful and Constitutionally protected activity; it is to punish acts that, though committed against one person, are aimed at that class of persons. Secondly, it is to punish activities that the nation as a whole finds repugnant, but are not punished due to jury nullification.
The problem is to get the rabble-rousers to quit using it as a tool of guilt or blackmail. Level-headed prosecutors and jurists can do that; so can level-headed Freepers.