He was talking about a clip in which Sarah Palin responds to unnamed Republican sources who reportedly don’t want her to run for president. She said they should “man up” and come forward so she could debate with them.

Palin’s remark was the latest in a string made by candidates this election year who told their opponents they were “unmanly” they needed to “man up,” “put your man-pants on,” or that they lacked “cojones.”

If a politician is going to criticize an opponent for not being strong enough or having certain skills, just say that. Man Up implies a candidate is not a “real” man because he’s weak, ineffectual and impotent. The slur is an attempt to undermine and insult him on the basis of what society thinks an ideal man is. It’s the male equivalent of what got California Governor-elect Jerry Brown in trouble when someone in his campaign called Meg Whitman a “whore.”

Man Up hurts women, too. It assumes masculinity is a qualification to hold public office. Equating “manly” with strength, productivity and integrity demeans women by excluding them from those characteristics. It doesn’t allow femininity to be powerful. That further marginalizes women in politics, which is something that the U.S. needs to improve.

In light of the testosterone litmus tests this year, it’s worth noting that presumptive House Speaker John Boehner cried on Election night. He wept when he spoke about spending his “whole life chasing the American dream.”

There absolutely nothing wrong with a man crying in public. In fact, it was actually fitting he did. In an election season when terms like ‘man up” and “unmanly” were thrown at candidates, the head of the winning party wept. Politics clearly isn’t immune from American masculinity’s soul-searching and attempts to figure itself out.

Boehner’s tears won’t stop the Man Up trend. It’s an easy soundbite to throw at a candidate. I do hope, though, that the next candidate who’s told to “man up” can call out the remark’s inherent sexism. If they win, they should feel free to rejoice and cry in victory.

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.

Mel Gibson keeps doing it to himself. The list of his anti-semetic, racist and misogynistic tirades gets longer and a police investigation has been opened into the assault on his ex-girlfriend. And to further hurt his career, the NFSW audio of this conversation, which is purported to be him, has surfaced. [RadarOnline]

You may already know there’s no sex in the Champagne Room. There’s also no sex if you’re Middle Class. [New York Times]

Hot GOP. What’s behind the ogling and sexualization of Palin and other Republican women? [Newsweek]

Can you ask your church for a refund? This woman did. She sued her church for $250,000 – a portion of the money and gifts she claims she gave the church over 37 years – because a gay wedding was held there. [Clutch/theGrio]

Sarah Palin’s and Barack Obama’s very different styles and appeal illustrate the contradiction Americans have about our leaders. Some people like Joe the Plumbers. Others like elites. Others like the two wrapped up into one.

Palin, who has said she’s thinking about running for president in 2012, blew away the Tea Party Convention crowd in Nashville for a price of $100,000. What unique brand of folksy does the Tea Party get for 100-grand? She delivers lines like, “How’s that hope-y, change-y stuff working out for ya?” and writes on her hand. (You’d think with all that money, she could just remember the four concepts she scribbled on her palm.)

On the other hand (pun intended), Obama’s State of the Union speech last month was just the opposite of Palin’s folksy speech. There were the customary two introductions of the president and 91 ovations, including 58 that brought Congress – at least some of them – to their feet. Kings, queens and dictators get that type of adulation.

I realize I’m talking more about style here than substance. Intelligence, the ability to juggle multiple problems and motivate others to help with those problems are important skills for a president, but style is important, too. How politicians present themselves and their ideas can make or break a campaign or tenure in office.

The over-the-top ceremony we give to officeholders, particularly presidents, runs counter to the man-of-the-people quality we demand from the men and women who campaign to get elected to office. On the campaign trail, candidates do everything they can to show how “regular” they are. “Regular,” of course, means “not elite.” Ivy League educated Obama went to diners and had beers with voters. Hillary Clinton, who also went to an Ivy League school, downed shots on the campaign trail and Republican flavor-of-the-moment Senator Scott Brown made his GMC truck a part of his campaign.

Once in office, though, politicians, particularly in higher office, are given the accoutrements of political success: titles, adulation and ceremony. They are adorned as soon as the inauguration is over. Politicians aren’t addressed as Mr. McCain, Ms. Palin or Mr. Obama. It’s Senator, Governor and Mr. President. And they have these titles for the rest of their lives! After the inauguration, a huge parade and numerous balls welcome the First Couple to the White House. They’re like a royal couple moving into the American Presidential Palace.

It’s easy to see why we would want our politicians to seem down-to-earth and in-touch with our needs. We want them to know what we go through. We want them to feel our pain. They represent our interests and us – they’re supposed to, at least.

There’s another possible source for the reason why we want our politicians to be ordinary and extraordinary. We’re a country based on the premise of social and economic mobility. We tell our children they can be anything they want: an astronaut, a baseball player or president of the United States. So, when we see politicians of any level, we want to believe we can do that. We may not want the job, but I think Americans want to believe that anyone can achieve high office. It’s the notion that we have the opportunity to be chosen and elevated by our peers to our nation’s political aristocracy.

Of course, being president is huge job and an awesome responsibility. The president and the rest our leaders – federal, state and local – are trusted with everything from our roads and parks to our rights and freedom. The pressure, power and responsibility call for an extra-ordinary person. They don’t have to be aloof, but maybe they shouldn’t be just anybody.