Juliet Williams of the Associated Press asked the three leading California gubernatorial candidates for their positions on Arizona's new illegal immigration law (link):

Meg Whitman was, of course, on the wrong side: "I think there's just better ways to solve this problem... I'm a big believer in, 'What are the two or three things that will make the biggest difference here?'" She then mentioned her immigration proposals, some of which have already been dealt with here and here.

The AP reporter also writes: Whitman declined to say whether she believes the law is racist, as critics have charged.

The fact that she had no answer shows once again how she's out of her league and how - like Arnold Schwarzenegger - she's not going to take on the far-left. See this previous example. The correct response to questions like that would be to point out that those making such claims suffer from low credibility, to point to the civil rights language in the law, and to point out that much of the law is similar to long-established federal law. Whitman didn't even try.

For his part, Steve Poizner didn't exactly offer a strong response but, once again, it's better than Whitman's. In a statement he said: "We will watch closely to see how the law in Arizona is implemented and whether it produces positive results."

And, of course, Jerry Brown opposes the law, saying in a statement that: "The Arizona law is legally problematic... This is an issue of federal responsibility, and the federal government needs to step up, secure the border and enact sensible immigration reform."