Well, I ticked a lot of people off with my post on Barbara Boxer, one of more egregiously sanctimonious Senators. Here's a reasonable counter-argument typical of many of your emails:

I think it is valid to say to someone that it is easy to sit somewhere and discuss war as some abstract political idea. It is another to watch your child get on a plane for a combat zone knowing they may not come back. I think that had Bush at some point since 2003 been able to convince one of his daughters to join even the Navy or Air Force we the people would be more likely to trust this man.

Asking if Dr. Rice can truly understand what the parents are preparing to do is not wrong in my book. It is bringing up a real issue. For many peole this is not an abstract discussion of geo political strategy it involves Death. That is real!

Sorry, but I'm not buying this for a second. Boxer's was the kind of cheap shot that makes substantive discourse impossible. Boxer was questioning Rice as a senator questioning a secretary of state. Their family relationships are utterly irrelevant to the point at hand, i.e. the current Iraq strategy. As readers know, I tend to agree with Boxer on this. But I'm not going to personalize it. What Boxer was clearly doing was insinuating that those without children or without children in combat somehow have less moral and political standing to debate this issue. If that's true, why allow any non-soldier to have a say on this? Why allow women an equal say, since men comprise an overwhelming majority of combat soldiers? Since openly gay people are barred from the military, are they also to be told they have less standing to debate? Once you go down this line of emotional and mroal blackmail, you end up with virtually no one being able to debate the central issue at hand without Sheehan-style idiocy. Boxer's remark was a piece of slime. And she should apologize.