Boxer - Rice

Certainly, Boxer’s comments were pointed, but I am struggling to understand how they rise to the level of a personal attack:

Boxer was saying, essentially, that Rice wouldn’t pay a personal price – she has no kids who will be sent to war. How is that anything, but pointing out the obvious (Boxer also stated that she wouldn’t pay a personal price, because her kids were too old).

Somehow, Bush and Co are trying to turn this into a ‘Feminist’ issue – suggesting Boxer was implying that Rice couldn’t understand the concerns of a parent because she didn’t have children. Apparently, this suggests that Rice is a failure because she has no children? Well, according to the GOP anyway, which is funny because that’s what many members of the GOP actually believe.

Boxer clearly meant what she said – not that Rice was incapable of understanding, but that she would not have to pay a personal price. And she’s right. While I may intellectually understand that kids who go to war will die, that’s not the same thing as being a parent of a kid at war. I enjoy an emotional distance – these are not people I know. Rice may understand the sacrifice, but she will not have to bear that sacrifice.

That’s what Boxer was saying. And she’s right.