4 ms·

This is very cynical. Are we really to believe that the only part of Obama's reaction one would find lacking is his lack of theatrical anger? I would argue tha

This is very cynical. Are we really to believe that the only part of Obama's reaction one would find lacking is his lack of theatrical anger? I would argue that his actions are coming up short too. The simple fact of the matter is that Obama is presiding over a country that is allowing its largest businesses to gain immense profits at the cost of its taxpayers. A few examples include Goldman which is arbitraging the markets with funds borrowed at a near-zero Fed discount window and oil companies such as BP whose profits (6.2 billion EBIT in Q1) clearly indicate that the leases on which it is drilling are priced far too low and don't possibly cover the external costs of drilling.

roundsquare 16y ago
That is besides the point. The main point of the article is that people want to see him get emotional and thats just not who he is. Its silly for people to want that... its a waste of time. But, since people will always want it, lets get someone good looking to do it and let him do his job.
- mscantland 16y ago
  It isn't beside the point. He isn't doing his job, and painting it as simply criticism of his failure to emote is a smokescreen.
  - roundsquare 16y ago
    Sorry, I think I wasn't being clear. If his actions are coming up short, thats very important. In fact, thats what we should be discussing. Thats where we should be pressuring him to do better. So we are, in fact, in agreement that the President's actions should be under the closest scrutiny and open to criticism that he should take into account. The point of the article however is that the President (whoever it may be) is also called upon to do two things: 1) Seemingly react with the same emotions as the American people. 2) Take part in various ceremonial activities. Especially with respect to the first (and to some degree with the second, though this can be debated more easily) this is absurd. Just because people are angry with something, why should the President show the same anger. At times, it may be strategically sound to do so, but at times it would be a bad idea. This, I think, is the main idea of the article. Note that I have not mentioned any specific President or any specific disaster or event. This is a general point. If you take issue with Obama's actions, thats all well and good, but its not what the article was getting at (at least in my reading). Edit: Minor edit for clarity.

roundsquare 16y ago

That is besides the point. The main point of the article is that people want to see him get emotional and thats just not who he is. Its silly for people to want that... its a waste of time. But, since people will always want it, lets get someone good looking to do it and let him do his job.

mscantland 16y ago
It isn't beside the point. He isn't doing his job, and painting it as simply criticism of his failure to emote is a smokescreen.
- roundsquare 16y ago
  Sorry, I think I wasn't being clear. If his actions are coming up short, thats very important. In fact, thats what we should be discussing. Thats where we should be pressuring him to do better. So we are, in fact, in agreement that the President's actions should be under the closest scrutiny and open to criticism that he should take into account. The point of the article however is that the President (whoever it may be) is also called upon to do two things: 1) Seemingly react with the same emotions as the American people. 2) Take part in various ceremonial activities. Especially with respect to the first (and to some degree with the second, though this can be debated more easily) this is absurd. Just because people are angry with something, why should the President show the same anger. At times, it may be strategically sound to do so, but at times it would be a bad idea. This, I think, is the main idea of the article. Note that I have not mentioned any specific President or any specific disaster or event. This is a general point. If you take issue with Obama's actions, thats all well and good, but its not what the article was getting at (at least in my reading). Edit: Minor edit for clarity.