I agree with you, Liz, although "reverse racism" and "reverse discrimination" are misnomers. Discrimination is discrimination. There’s no "reverse" to it. Whenever I hear journalists use those terms, I cringe.

The young people made this election and a new way of looking at candidates has begun.  Hopefully they will continue to vote and pick the best candidate rather than the same old choices.

Hopefully, everyone who votes will now know the importance of electing an experienced President who has the best interest of our beautiful country as their number one priority.  Too far left and too far right should be too far for all of us.  

I do believe there is such a thing as "reverse discrimination."   For decades we have been addressing "discrimination" in the workplace and in our private settings.   We all went "overboard"  to a fault to make certain that discrimination was eradicated in the workplace.     Those same discrimination policies should now hold true for caucasions to make certain that the playing field is absolutely "even."    It has to be balanced and in order to balance it we need to be made aware of it.

Liz, who is to say that future George Washington or Thomas Jefferson will not come in the form of a woman or a race other than white. What will happen is that the people will dictate by their vote and if it turns out the people think it’s time to let ‘daddy’ sit on the side lines for a few years that’s what will happen.

Why does it always have to come down to race?  As long as they met all the criteria set in place to run & get elected President, so be it.  Race should not matter.

Liz, in answer to your last question, why not? After all, we’ve insisted on two white men to make the ticket ‘okay’ all these many years. And the cries of ‘reverse discrimination’ are so pathetic. 

Insisting on race/gender/sexual orientation etc., as the barometer—the great qualifier—is what is wrong. Actually being able to perform the task at hand, being the best candidate is what is important. I agree with you Liz..its about qualification and knowledge that your candidate voices the opinion you want represented. This question reminds me of the interviwer, who back during the Presidential campaign asked Obama supporters how they “felt” about Obama’s stand on the issues…except…the “stand” taken (right down to the VP choice) were ALL McCain’s idealogy—yet Obamites found them “agreeable” when coming from Obama (right down to ‘his’ selection of Sarah Palin). Race, sadly, trumped all in the last election.

I don’t like any form of discrimination anywhere.  The best qualified should be in the top positions.  Period.

That said, the mechanics of politics pretty much guarantees that the BEST are not the ones who end up in the top political offices.  The candidates have to be acceptable to their parties, palatable to the majority of the public, and it helps to be telegenic or have name recognition (whether bad or good hardly matters!). The worst thing is that with all the mudslinging and digging into every personal foible dating back practically to elementary school, the very best and brightest have NO interest in serving.