What Was She Thinking?

I'm not defending Barbara Boxer's idiotic comment to Condoleezza Rice last week. As a woman without children, I know too well the subtle -- and not so subtle -- digs that childless woman face in our society. And Boxer should be taken to task for it.

But the White House, Republicans and this columnist are obfuscating when they say it was anti-feminist. It was anti-intelligent, granted. Anti-feminist, not even close. What's anti-feminist is all the men turning the exchange into Washington's latest catfight.

And it's beyond ludicrous for Levant to describe Trent Lott's lauding of segregationist, at-the-time racist Strom Thurmond as a "much milder comment," when compared to Boxer's. To compare Boxer's stupid attack on Rice with Lott's endorsement of a former presidential candidate who vowed in 1948 that "all the laws of Washington and all the bayonets of the Army cannot force the Negro into our homes, our schools, our churches" is inexusable and does not accurately reflect the full context of the Lott episode. Specially on Martin Luther King, Jr. Day. Good gawd.

And it's more than a slight exaggeration to say Lott had his scalp handed to him - yes, he was the focus of much scrutiny and had to give up his majority leader post. But today he currently holds the number 2 post in his party, scalp intact.

Of course it doesn't help my outrage that to this day, despite my request of December 19, 2002 - which also happens to be the subject of Outrage.com's inaugural post - no kidding, it was the issue that made me start blogging - no one can tell me exactly what Lott meant. Lott apologized four times - but not once did he explain himself. I still want to know what "problems" we would avoided if there had been a President Thurmond. The Civil Rights Act? An end to segregation and Jim Crow laws? Bay of Pigs? LSD? Disco? WHAT?

Boxer may have hit Rice below the belt but her message was very clear. Lott's was dangerous and he's suffered only a few minor inconveniences for it.