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 shou

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.