Just when we thought some of the big boys in the White House were obsessed only with war and profits abroad, we find out that they also find ‘broads’ warring right here at home even more disturbing--if not intriguing. Especially when it diverts our attention away from a brutal invasion which has ignited a multi billion dollar bloody civil war leaving several hundreds thousands dead or maimed.

And let’s face it, if you can successfully characterize two powerful and intelligent women challenging one another as a ‘cat fight’, you can guarantee the country will change channels momentarily and tune into the two brawling domestic felines—especially if there is mud slinging.

Of course the two felines in this case are not naked mud wrestlers for the WWF but Democratic California Senator Barbara Boxer and Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice.

That both of these intelligent women are being used as pawns is evident. Rice by the Bush White House in performing her job to the letter in parroting the policies of her boss—no matter what the cost. And Boxer is now the punching bag of conservatives attempting to impose a higher moral ground by capitalizing on a situation where race and gender discrimination are the backdrop—yes an unlikely pairing in the hands of many on the right .

What is clear is both women, however intelligent, are being man-handled by a political machine that cares little for either of them.

In case you’ve been stranded in the snow somewhere, on January 11, Senator Boxer and the Secretary of State faced off again on Capitol Hill, discussing the war in Iraq. Much like what happened at Ms. Rice’s confirmation hearing in January 2005 when Boxer aggressively questioned Rice about inconsistencies in her statements about the administrations policies regarding Iraq, Ms. Boxer again challenged Rice about her personal investment in the war in Iraq saying: “Who pays the price? I'm not going to pay a personal price. My kids are too old and my grandchild is too young," Boxer said. "You're not going to pay a particular price, as I understand it, with an immediate family. So who pays the price? The American military and their families."

And off came the gloves and the spinning machine was tuned ‘on’.

Somehow Boxer’s statement that she herself wasn’t personally paying a price and asserted that Rice wasn’t either--because she had no immediate family serving in the war--became characterized as a feminist slur.

Even though both statements are in fact true, It doesn’t mean Rice isn’t empathetic, sympathetic but that she, like Boxer, does not have a personal stake in the bodies returning daily in bags from Iraq. Period.

Thanks to Fox news, we were assured the airwaves would be injected with indignence at the spectacle of verbal scratching and clawing –and all in the name of questioning women’s progress. And for those who have watched Bill O’Rielly, it is evident how important fairness and equity are to his reporting.

On Saturday, Fox reported “Boxer lit into Rice on Thursday with a bitter diatribe during a heated line of questioning before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee looking into Iraq policies. At one point, Boxer turned to the broad question of who pays the ultimate price for war. Rice has never married and has no children.”

And then White house spokes-man Tony snow took to the airwaves: " I do think it's outrageous". Here you got a professional woman, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, and Barbara Boxer is sort of throwing little jabs because Condi doesn't have children, as if that means that she doesn't understand the concerns of parents. Great leap backward for feminism."

A great leap back for feminism? Really? I would have thought the great leap backward was the overturning of Roe vs Wade in which women will be prohibited (again) from making choices about their bodies and their lives.

Or perhaps the current disparities in employment which according to the U.S. Census Bureau reports that ‘the real median earnings of men who worked full-time, year-round remained unchanged between 2002 and 2003 at $40,668. The real median earnings of the comparable group of women declined by 0.6 percent to $30,724. ... The last time the female-to-male earnings ratio experienced an annual decline was between 1998 and 1999."

And what about calling her “Condi”. If Mr Snow were so concerned about her professional status why did he not refer to her as the professional that she is. Madam Secretary or Ms. Rice. But Condi?

When was the last time we heard the President or Vice President referred to as “George” or “Dick” in an official press conference.

Is it because she’s a woman or because she is a black woman?

Boxer and Rice are two women on opposing sides of a political war. How many times in the last several years have men—whether politicians or journalists--challenged that the mostly white multi-millionaire cabinet members who report to the Bush White House do not feel the impact of this war because they have no immediate family members who are enlisted and are risking their lives? Plenty. It is debate that has been raging since the early days of this administration.

In a January 2001, article journalists Jonathan D. Salant of the Associated Press made a similar point in an article called “Bush's Cabinet Mostly Millionaires” where he quotes Charles Lewis, executive director of the watchdog Center for Public Integrity who stated "There is a legitimate question about how sensitive and how acutely aware you can be when you're a millionaire, in dealing with everyday issues like prescription drugs and Social Security payments."

Is this not the point Boxer was making to Rice? That if there is not a personal cost to you, you are not as acutely aware and sensitive as those who live with great risk?

Why is Lance Armstrong such a powerful and committed advocate for Cancer research? Because he personally experienced a life threatening illness which will never allow him to forget what is at stake. He is now devoting his life to fighting for a cause it that lives very close to him.

Unfortunately for Rice, she needed a comeback. Playing into the hands of Fox news she responded: "In retrospect, gee, I thought single women had come further than that, that the only question is are you making good decisions because you have kids." Huh? As if this were really the point.

And we continue to be pummeled in the press with unlikely feminist sympathizers concerned with the progress of women like radio talk show host Rush Limbaugh who so eloquently weighed in on the issue last week: "Here you have a rich white chick with a huge, big mouth, trying to lynch this -- an African-American woman -- right before Martin Luther King Day, hitting below the ovaries here."

Wow, I can’t wait to get Howard Stern’s analysis.

The real “great leap backward for feminism” is that an exchange between two highly visible, knowledgeable and influential women has been minimized and reduced to a political bitch-slapping. Yes, that is the “great leap backward.”

BC Columnist Molly Secours is a Nashville writer/filmmaker/speaker and co host on several radio programs at 88.1 WFSK at Fisk. Her 14 minute documentary called “Faces Of TennCare: Putting a Human Face on Tennessee’s Health Care Failure” is being aired on The Documentary Channel daily during the entire month of January.

For more information visit mollysecours.com or to see a 30 second clip of the film visit:myspace.com/mollysecours. Click here to contact Ms. Secours.

is published every Thursday.