Seek, you wrote
"Since when should race be a consideration when voting for someone? I don't want people to approve of Condi because of how or where she grew up. I want votes to be counted on how well she's done her job so far."
I think you misunderstood what I was saying. I do not think that race should have anything to do with whether or not someone gets a job. I am totally against "affirmitive action."
But what I was saying is that if the media were to report this story the same way that it would report the story if a republican were doing what Kerry and Boxer are doing, that the question of racism would be asked. Rember Trent Lott?
And when the history is written on Condi Rice, I think that Kerry and Boxer are going to look like they voted against her for racist reasons. Biden cited the legit reasons to vote against someone and Rice did not meet any of those cited reasons. So why really did Kerry and Boxer vote against her? These people always vote against minorities that they don't like, even though they try to present themselves as great defenders of advancing minorities. History is catching up with them and they will be exposed for the libs that they are.
History will remember that it was a republican that appointed Thomas, Powell, and Rice. History will remember these facts.
When democrats have had the opportunity they have never put minorities in these high of positions.
If nothing else, I hope that Americans grasp and think about your last lines:
"History will remember that it was a republican that appointed Thomas, Powell, and Rice. History will remember these facts."
Future Americans' realization of this just may, in turn, cause pause, in search of reasons as to why.