I think you're taking the quote a little out of context.

First, Boxer was not attacking Condi. She even said that she herself will not pay the price for these decisions.

I think it's more immature to jump to conclusions on what a politician means when she makes a strong statement, especially branding another politician as more intelligent based on one quote.

If the administration really wanted to "change the minds of the American people" he could explain to the families of our troops why he sent the troops over there to die, something the administration has not been very clear on nor very consistent on.

The fact is, Boxer is right. There are very few politicians who send their children, if any, to fight for the war they declared. That means, no matter how much vicarious pain these politicians have experienced, they have not nearly dealt with as much sacrifice as the American people.

One can call the Dems "elitist" and "out of touch with the American people," but I think this statement from Boxer proves quite the contrary.

It's funny... this language of the American culture wars. If you make a statement against another party, it's fine. But if they retort, they are automatically shot down.

I don't mind talking with Republicans or Democrats, but both of their ideologies are divisive and disgusting. The reason the discourse in Congress gets nowhere is because both parties are not willing to listen. Both parties are immature.

If the Republicans are to be more mature than the Dems (something this post seemed to assert, but only proved the opposite), perhaps they can be the more mature party and be the first to drop all this cultural baggage. That's right no more "freedom-hater" labeling unless you can define "freedom" and prove that your concept of freedom is more accurate than their concept.

Until then, these parties will have alienated the American people to the point where it will become opportunistic for communists like me to step in and take away the right to exploit and disenfranchise the American people.

My branding of Boxer as "not as intelligent" as Rice is not based on that one mere quote, but on the breadth of experience and education Ms. Rice has received as compared to Boxer... and based on Boxer's assumption that Rice cannot make proper military decisions because she does not have children.

Many are actually considering this statement by Boxer as one against the entire feminist movement; saying that because Ms. Rice has chosen to be a single, successful woman instead of raising a family like the stereotypes suggest, she can't make military decisions.

Had a Republican said something similar to a Democrat, the amount of complaints and media coverage would be much greater... I doubt that this statement by Boxer will have any repercussions for her.

"Had a Republican..."

lol. That kind of assumption is not well grounded, either. The notion of "liberal media" is a myth. If you ever get around to it, do a google on the term "gatekeeper" or "gatekeeper of the media."

Again, entirely out of context. What does that quote have to do with feminism? It was a very introspective look at policymaking in the US. I have no illusions that Rice knows this, given her professionalism and breadth of education. The notion that its an attack on feminism is a feeble attempt by the administration to dodge the issue she was really trying to raise: policymaking methods.

The quote wasn't even directed entirely at Rice, but also at herself. As soon as she mentioned "single," the administration hopped on the one part of the quote without full context.

Of course it would make liberal ideologies sound hypocritical if you only mentioned half of the quote. You can do this same tactic with many things: you can justify war, oppression of the worker, oppression of women, oppression of the glbt community, with the Bible.

But notice how the lexicon of fundamentalism is severely limited. Typical Christians only draw directly from a pool of verses scarcely exceeding twenty unique verses to justify whatever belief or value. The scary thing is not just that they tend to ignore the other thousands of verses, but that in doing so, they misinterpret the verses that they do quote due to lack of context.

"...saying that because Ms. Rice has chosen to be a single, successful woman..."

Exactly and not exactly. The statement suggests that because Rice and herself have nothing to lose (ie: children qualifying for service), they must step back and think more carefully, and compassionately, about the policies they -both- agree upon.

It's not insensitive, it's deeply sensitive... at least toward the people that their policies affect: the American people. When you have been elected into power to represent a people, you must drop all assumptions and agendas. After all, you are merely representing a people. That is the value of American democracy. Anything else is fascist and an insult to the men and women who have died to protect our freedoms.

That being said, neither side should take an issue raised on the floor as a personal insult. Partisanship is running rampant not because people are attacking the person rather than the issues, it's because policymakers are taking things as a cultural statement.

The issue is not that Rice has no right to make policies. The issue is that Rice and the entire administration is being guided by agenda, not the needs of the people they represent. Nothing more.