We've probably all heard arguments for affirmitive action. "Why are all these CEO's white, there's minorities who are qualified for the position". "Why are all those astranauts and NASA's scientists men, there's woman who can do that!". "Why are there no blacks on the team that mapped the human DNA genome, there were qualified black scientists they could have chosen". Notice statements like these usually claim that the discriminated against people were 'qualified enough', they will never make the clain that they were the 'best qualified' because thats a whole other logical argument. But a claim of racism is easy to make because its impossible to prove or disprove so many people will have their suspicions. I feel its only fair one should be required to prove they are the 'best qualified' for the position, and throw all race and sex arguments out the window.

Now we all probably know that Obama, and likely Palin were the beneficiaries of affirmitive action. They weren't the 'best qualified' but they were judged 'qualified enough' by someone who wanted to do something historic and get the first woman or african american into a position that has been the domain of white males. The humanists are desperate to prove that men and woman are the same, all races are the same, its all social constructs that make things different. And people get pushed into positions where they are not the most qualified to try to 'change' things. This sort of 'change' sets the races and sexes apart not pulls them together, and creates huge internal political racial and sexist divides in society. There are woman and minorities who are qualified for president. Arguably Palin and Obama are presidential material, but neither is experienced enough at this time. Now that both sides have a weakness of promoting a less experienced candidate, I wonder how the experience issue retorick will take fold.

They're desperate to prove that because it can't be proven. It can't even be suggested. It can only be lied about. And those who question the lie, silenced. But "social constructs" just do not explain why the AIDS rate among blacks in Washington, D.C. and Detroit is identical to the AIDS rate among blacks in Africa. That's in the genes.

__________________
Does anyone think it's weird that the two biggest goals of our time are "tolerance" and "zero tolerance"?

My friend AIDS rates are the way they are in black communities in the US because of lack of education. as a black woman i'll be the first to admit that many blacks do not care for using protection and many of them don't even discuss. you'll the AIDS rate is also connected to the amount of births out of wedlock. which shows that blacks do not use protection.

This is untrue, at least about blacks using protection. Condom use by black teens is higher than condom use of white teens for example. The AIDS rate is best explaine by a lack of some education as well as not being tested. At least have your facts straight the next time.

Obama got the nod because he impressed the hell of enough democratic leadership to get a shot at running, and then because he impressed the hell out of enough voters in the primary.

Palin? Not a clue why she was chosen. I seriously doubt that she'd be on any parties ticket if it had been left up to the rank and file Republican voters, though.

Listen, there are a LOT of qualified Republican women who could have been chosen.

McCain, for reasons I have yet to fathom, chose her, instead.