Well, Mr. White Male Senators: Happy Now?

I am sure that Senator John McCain, Senator Lindsey Graham, and the rest of their group are in their smoke-filled back rooms crowing over their triumph at scuttling Susan Rice's nomination to be the next Secretary of State.

Opps!  I forgot.  Her name had been floated, right?  She hadn't even been officially nominated, as far as I can recall.

When I heard the news this morning, I got this sick feeling in my stomach that turned into a long-held knot.  Let's see.  When have I had that feeling before?  Van Jones?  Lani Guinier?

Yes, I understand the "win one for the Gipper" cliche.  What I mean is that given all the issues the country is facing and our duly elected leader, Barack Obama, is facing as the President, the last thing he needs is another distraction.  But is there any time where a so-called "distraction" trumps the so-called "unpleasantness" it may cause?

When the claim of an undue distraction is used to keep us from addressing the REAL issues of distraction, you have an interesting paradox.  And the paradox is two-fold: one, using the excuse of this nomination being a distraction from all the other things that the president has on his plate is to relegate the importance of this nomination to a manufactured "subservient" position.  And second, you also, at the same time, relegate the subtext to a subservient position.  The subtext was so easy to see.  They just did not like this up-front black woman.  Period.  What was the word that was constantly used to describe her: BLUNT.  You just can't have a Secretary of State who is blunt. At last look, I always felt that one of the things that made me proud of being black was my cultural upbringing, and with that, being blunt.  Being upfront.  Telling it like it is.  Not couching dialogue in inferences that you feel people will just intuitively pick up the cues without hand signals. But then again, I also know personally how that "bluntness," and "upfrontness"  has continually gotten me into trouble within my white circle of friends, alternative movement politics and job interviews and advancement. It all smacks so much of racism, and by extension, sexism.  And who do we have now to nominate?  Susan Rice taking herself out of the nomination clears the way for who, did I hear?  None other than John Kerry, who would SAIL through with no problem.  Why?  Well, because "he's one of us."  "He's one of the good ones."  Subtext: a white male who knows how to swivel and articulate the language instead of using that same language to be blunt, to tell the truth; no speak loudly and carry a "blunt" stick here.

But let's just suppose the argument of distraction was true.  So where does that leave as a country?  Are we better now quantitatively, qualitatively, or both?  Quantitatively, one less distraction.  Qualitatively, without this distraction, are we now further along in coming to an agreement before we fall off the fiscal cliff?  Without this distraction, can we concentrate now on getting the unemployment rate below 6%?  Without this distraction, are all the areas in the world that are about to explode, because their people want a more democratic society going to get our full attention, in whatever way we feel is important to make that happen?

You see, the real argument here is that distraction is not the real argument because it does a poor job of covering up what the real arguments are.  You think you can move on, to take on other problems, but what you end up seeing is that all the other problems are tainted and painted with the same brush.  And what will happen is that the next "distraction" is not far behind.  The real distractions are the ones that are below the surface, the racism that is apparent around cultural expression, thought and ultimately, the qualifications of a woman because of race and gender conflict. (I just flashed on Anita Hill). Until subtext issues (distractions) are addressed, we will flail about, lost, trying to find our way, and continually use these same distractions to walk backwards into the future.

Is that what we want as a country?  I'm sure there are some in power that would be just fine with that.  I'm not one of them.  And I will continue to celebrate being "blunt," telling it like it is.