There’s a saying that people use to explain things they can’t. ‘God moves in mysterious ways.’ Now, my religious practicing went the same way as my piano practice when I was twelve, but I’ve always understood this phrase to mean that we can’t always explain why God causes things to happen. Because it’s God. That’s part of the whole divinity thing.

So when you have political candidates such as Sarah Palin, Sharron Angle, and Christine O’Donnell, all claiming that God called them to run or it was a part of His “plan,” what does it mean when they keep losing? There’s a couple of ways this can go.

To begin with, maybe it’s a personal thing where He wants them to grow, to learn from their experiences on the campaign trail. Maybe He wants them to learn a little humility in defeat. After all, the meek are going to inherit the Earth.

Or how about this. . .He’s preparing them for the next time they run for office, teaching them the lessons they need to win their next election. With the lessons they can take with them, they’ll be in a better position to assume the mantle of leadership they have been told to pursue.

There is, of course, a third possibility. All three candidates were surprise choices. No one knew who Sarah Palin was before she was picked as John McCain’s running mate. His campaign enjoyed a jump in popularity immediately after she joined, but that quickly disappeared. I’d argue that the election might have been much closer had McCain picked someone else as his running mate- one of his primary opponents, for instance. Did she cause McCain to lose the election? I think people will be able to argue about that for years to come.

Both Sharron Angle and Christine O’Donnell had surprise wins in their respective primaries over much more experienced, known politicians. I’m not as familiar with Delaware, but I live and work in Nevada, and I know quite a few Republicans who could not bring themselves to vote for Angle. They didn’t necessarily vote for Harry Reid, but those were votes that the Republican candidate could traditionally have counted on that Angle didn’t get. They were votes that Sue Lowden, who lost the Republican primary to Angle, would have received had she been running. And it wasn’t really a close thing here, either. Harry Reid won by forty thousand votes, about five percent, which is much greater than his margin of victory in 1998. He won by 428 votes that year.

So the third possibility: Perhaps, yes, God did tell all three candidates to run. He wanted them in the race. Maybe He wanted them in the race because He knew they would throw the election in favor of the Democrats. Maybe God is a Democrat, and He told these candidates to run to aid the Democratic party.

After all, God moves in mysterious ways.

Rich is a writer who lives in Las Vegas. You can follow him on his blog and on Twitter.

Sure, that’s not the worst thing you could say to someone, but if you use someone’s gender to attack them, isn’t that sexism? When a female candidate’s sex life is made public, it’s done to shame her because some people think women should be sexually modest. When a male candidate’s masculinity is questioned and he’s told to “man-up” or “be man enough,” is that shaming him by saying he’s weak and impotent?

A recent study by the Women’s Media Center showed using sexism in political campaigns works when men use it against candidates who are women. When women fight back, though, voters favor them.

There’s a difference between fighting the sexism and just responding to it. When Nevada Senate candidate Sharon Angle told Harry Reid to “man-up,” Reid, a former boxer, said, “From the street to the ring to the Senate chamber, I’ve never had to prove my manhood to anyone.” That’s an adequate response, but by mentioning “the street” and “the ring” he actually was asserting his toughness, and therefore, attempting to prove his manhood.

Photos were recently released of Krystal Ball, a congressional candidate in Virginia, and her then-husband at a college party playing with sex toys. She responded to the photos by saying:

Society has to accept that women of my generation have sexual lives that are going to leak into the public sphere. Sooner or later, this is a reality that has to be faced, or many young women in my generation will not be able to run for office.

In talking about the support she received from Hillary Clinton’s supporters and those who fought for women’s rights in previous generations, Ball said:

They will not see their daughters called whores when they run for office just because of some college or post-college party. They will not watch the tide of everything they fought for washed away by the public exposure of female sexuality.

That is fighting back!

It would be interesting to see if the Women’s Media Center study’s results would be the same if the genders were reversed, but I don’t think male wouldn’t fight back like Ball did. Not yet. It would mean challenging the strong, silent type that is the model of the modern American man: Take your licks, suck it up and move on. Politicians and the public aren’t ready to have that conversation. We may be aware that the modern man needs to be redefined, but we don’t know what he’s supposed to be.

Not yet.

See Also:
Both Gawker And O’Donnell Fail In “One-Night Stand” Story

Besides the political pressure on Reid to resign, his remarks also prompted talk about a national conversation on race. Professor Michael Eric Dyson said Reid’s remarks were a “teachable moment” for Barack Obama and the president needs to deal with the issue of race. Dyson added that Obama “runs from race like a black man runs from a cop.” That’s not an accurate analogy, nor is it particularly helpful when talking about race, but Obama would be an ideal choice begin a national conversation on race. Dr. Boyce Watkins, though, has a few reasons why Obama shouldn’t begin the conversation. One of which, alienating some white voters, Obama himself probably realizes.

It’s fitting that the issue of race comes up around the time we celebrate the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.’s birthday while at the same time looking back at Obama’s (historic, though disappointing to some) first year in office. While his ascendancy to the Oval Office is proof that America has come a long way regarding race, the national hissy-fit we just had over Harry Reid ungracefully speaking the truth is proof we have a long way to go. Former Al Gore Campaign Manager Donna Brazile said this about the Reid gaffe: “We don’t have a common language to discuss issues – especially issues like racism and the sensitivity around discussing race. And because of that, people often trip over themselves.”

Finding that common language would help start a national conversation on race. But what exactly is a “national conversation?” If the United States is going to make an effort to talk about race on both national and local levels, how would that actually happen? Logistically speaking, how would a conversation on a national scale work?

 
Is it a series of town hall meetings? Would there be a Facebook page and website? (There actually is a website.) Would it be similar to Live Aid where there are concerts in order to promote the issue and get the conversation going? Is it like a campaign to raise money for cancer or other diseases with ribbons, walks and runs? Would there be corporate sponsors with the mainstream media on-board doing stories and interviews?

Then how should it start? Again, Obama might be a logical choice to initiate it. If he does, he should start and steer the conversation. He shouldn’t wait for “teachable moments.” After the series of talks, meetings or events began, he would jump-in the conversation when appropriate. He wouldn’t be front and center all the time. He would have to let it grow and flow organically.

But if it’s going to be a national conversation on race, it has to reflect the racial diversity and the conversations happening in the country. This “conversation” could have been framed between blacks and whites in the 1970′s and maybe even the 1980′s, but it has to be different now. America’s racial make-up is dramatically changing. Between now and 2050, Latinos are projected to go from a projected 15% to almost 25% of the U.S. population. This conversation couldn’t just be about color (black, white, brown), it would have to be about ethnicity and nationality (Latinos, Asians, Arabs), which would lead to other issues (immigration, jobs, terrorism). It would have to be more than just black and white.

It’s not that having a conversation on race isn’t a good idea. It’s just unclear how this national chat would take place. Maybe “conversation” is the wrong word. Maybe it’s a focus. Maybe it’s a movement. Whatever it is or will be, many of us will have to be brave enough to speak the truth about how we feel, have the strength to listen to others, even when we disagree or it’s uncomfortable, and have the will to honestly look at ourselves for who we are individually and as a nation.

All of those, especially the last one, are difficult for many people to do.

CNN filed a report about the back room deals needed to get Democrats to pass a filibuster-proof health care bill in the Senate. Take Nebraska Senator Ben Nelson of Nebraska. He was the last senator to agree to vote for the bill. What did this Democrat get for his state? The Federal Government will pay 100% of Nebraska’s share of Medicaid funding for all low-income Americans.. indefinitely!

The CNN story goes into detail about several deals like this. When pressed on the issue of back room dealing, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) said about the bill, “If they don’t have something in it important to them, then it’s — [it] doesn’t speak well of them.”

It doesn’t? It doesn’t speak well of our representatives to vote for the bill solely because they believe in reforming healthcare? I’m definitely not a part of the Tea Party movement, but their line about corruption in Washington begins to ring true when the Senate Majority Leader says this at press conference. 

Government handouts to states or districts in exchange for votes shouldn’t be business as usual.