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.