You know, I was watching the old movie "The Andromeda Strain" (Chrichton) on TV the other day. They had to assign a person the job of stopping the self-destruct if necessary, and it was given to the single guy with no kids. They said studies showed that such a person was best suited to make decisions rationally about life and death.
On the West Wing, when the president had his daughter kidnapped, he actually temporarily resigned as president, because he correctly realised that having a personal stake would cloud his judgment, and he might not be able to respond correctly to the terrorists if he thought it might cost his daughter's life.
If a Senator votes to end a war NOT because it's the right thing to do, but simply to save his own son from getting killed, that isn't honorable, it's selfish, self-serving, and could even be traitorous.
That suggestion by Boxer is the real evil here, beyond her sniping about Rice not having children.
There's an excellent point you're making in there. It would be pretty weak leadership indeed if a leader considered, even remotely, his or her own personal stake in the outcome of a decision.
A strong leader should be able to objectively consider the right course for the nation, whether or not there is any personal stake. If they find they cannot seperate their own interest from the matter at hand, then the only responsible thing to do is to let somebody else do it who can.
In fact it is so obvious that one wonders why somebody as politically motivated as Boxer wouldn't see the clear gaffe in it.