President Cries

Interesting. On the one hand, I think - He did it once, big deal. Will probably score him points for the reasons you mention. It was like when Biden got choked up about his son during one of the debeates. Actually a good thing.

But I can see what you are seeing. I do, however, think the people who would see it as "weakness" would try and attack us at whatever oppurtunity they get anyways.

So all in all, yeah, the president should not try to show himself crying to often, but just once is nothing to worry about.

Nothing wrong at all with being emotional. People and nations do what they do because they do. That's life.

I think he's done it a few times before in public. If you search the videos you'll see some other times.

Personally, I'm not convinced that it's that big a deal, though it may be. Think back to the Cuban missile crisis, when Kennedy and Kruschev were playing mind games trying to figure out what the other guy might do. If they're convinced you're a pushover they might be encouraged to do stuff that makes our lives a lot more difficult.

In any case, given the choice between crying and not crying, seems to me that there's so little benefit to be gained from crying (if any) that it seems a no brainer that you hold your emotions until you're in private.

I think you have a good point, jerikson!

Any nations that view something like that as a weakness and would try and use it against him are the same crap holes that can't be reasoned with anyway. So who cares?

"...are the same crap holes that can't be reasoned with anyway. So who cares?"

Well, you should. Because you MUST deal with other nations. It's not a option to say "who cares?".

In the case of the Cuban Missile Crisis, we had to figure out how to avoid nuclear war with Russia, and it came down to a personal battle between Kennedy and Kruschev. Personalities and perceptions matter in cases like that. If one side had made a slight mistake, you and I might not be here today.

Don't be a moron.

I'm planning on trying the same thing on my next SC visit- crying while thanking my hard working waitress and bartenders. With special thanks to the bathroom troll.

In other news, I just farted!!! Hear all about it at the top of the news at 9:00!

You too, mrrock !!! COOL !!! LMAO

I don't think it's a big deal. These were obviously tears of joy or relief, and not some kind of "Oh woe is me, what do I do now?!?" kind of thing, which I think would speak more to the issue of projecting strength. Also, I don't think Bush had any issues with perceived resolve or strength, and there's images and videos of him crying out there too - just google "bush cry" and watch what pops up. There's an issue of Time magazine with Reagan on the cover crying. It's a total non-issue.

And, I'm sure most world leaders make it a regular habit to watch the Big Lebowski and therefore know that "strong men also cry".

A group of young people worked around the clock for many months to get him re-elected. He wanted to thank them for believing in him and working so hard in a tough campaign. Sometimes when you look at people who have given so much to help you, it can be moving--to tears.

Good point jerikson

It is reported in some biographies that when the Kennedys were upstairs in the residence after regular work hours, JFK sobbed in front of Jackie when he learned of the loss of men at the Bay of Pigs. "I approved this and gave the order and those guys are dead." That's why he said at the press conference "I am the responsible officer of the government."

There is no question, I'm sure that the tears were justified because his staff did a great job. That's not the point. The point is should he, or any other president, cry in public?

Why? Because there really is a reason for wanting to project strength to other leaders around the world. Being perceived as weak can be troublesome.

Let's make believe that the US is trying to force a rogue nation, who has recently developed nuclear capabilities, to disarm and dismantle their weapons. Now our President, whoever that may be, issues an ultimatum: "If you don't disarm by tomorrow at noon, there will be major consequences".

And the response from the other leader, as he sits around with his other government officials drinking brandy and laughing: "Oh, yeah, what you gonna do? You pussy. You cry like little girl".

Sure, that will probably never happen. Y'know, like with Iran or anything....

But the point is: what is the risk, and what is the reward?

Is the risk worth the reward? And, BTW, what IS the reward? What does anyone gain from crying in public, other than maybe a political boost from the female vote?

With you or me, it doesn't matter. Not a big deal. Presidents are different. They need to think about that kind of stuff. Doesn't matter if he's Democrat or Republican.

It just proves that he is weak minded and is just a mouth piece for his cronys. The media has perpetrate the biggest lie on the American public since what was done to the German public in the 30's. If you cannot see the hatred he, the media and the extreme left have for working Americans you are truly fools. I have not seen such absolute hatred for half the country that did not support him since Nixon. Most everyone that is in a position to hire or expand their business that I have spoken to since the election has stated that they are going to maintain their businesses as best they can until they can retire. They will not consider hiring or expanding and many are going to cut back. One friend of mine told me why the f... should I work 80 hrs per week to expand and hire employees when the government is going to punish me and steal it stating "you did not make that".
Once again I say "Atlas Shrugged" should be manditory reading for high schoolers. Once the producers (entrepenuers) are fed up and quit, there will be no more rich folks to steal from and no one to create jobs. The govenment produces nothing and creates nothing, it only consumes mass quantities of wealth leaving behind devastation.

I've become convinced that a bunch of guys in this forum take drugs on a daily basis.

The point I was making by bringing up Reagan and Bush is that 1) our Presidents have cried in public before and 2) I don't think anyone ever perceived those guys as pushovers. So, it's happened before and I don't think there any negative consequences arose from it.

As for Iran, try googling "ahmadinejad cry" - this clearly isn't going to an incentive to misbehavior with them to judge by that.

Drug takers, whack-jobs, Randroids, you name it...

@Tiredtraveler- "I have not seen such absolute hatred for half the country that did not support him since Nixon". A lot of people (myself included) that George Bush was way more hated than Obama.

Given the media coverage, I expected to see Obama sobbing like child when I watched tape. Instead, it showed a few tears streaming down his face as he spoke to the volunteers. I don't see what all the fuss is about.

I guess some people will cook up any sort of excuse to hate anything this president does.

Did the same people whine when Boehner gets all teary-eyed?

We will all cry once we go over the fiscal cliff.

It will mean less money for dances, ITC, OTC, and other assorted stripclub pleasures.

I will be reduced to tipping at the rail like all the other PLs. X$ = X(.)(.) = :'(

I thought he looked weak but I don't think that means the Chinese or the Iranians are suddenly going to become more aggressive.

jester,

Not just from this episode, but put that with his other actions, make that inaction, and it adds fuel to the fire.

I don't know your age, but it is a perfect replay of the Carter/Reagan era.

I think that killing Osama and other terrorists represent "actions" that shows leadership. I guess conservatives just don't see it that way, but luckily the American public did.

I thought his tears were as un presidential in this situation as his affinity to doing the talk show circuit.

Ironcat,

Took him THREE DAYS to make the decision, and some believe it was really Valerie Jarret that made the decision. Also, don't forget that, as a Senator, he OPPOSED the very interrogation techniques that lead to finding bin laden. Had he had his way, that choice would likely never have come his way.

Clubber,

You might actually have top secret clearance and happen to know which of Obama's advisors advised him, so I won't argue with you about that. However, the last time I looked it is still the Commander in Chief who makes the decision (and takes the heat if it is a bad decision) so I still think that is leadership - just my opinion. I'm not a big Obama fan, but you have to admit he does a pretty damn good job killing terrorists, especially compared to Bush.

Ironcat,

I would not admit that at all. Since he has taken office the terrorist groups are on the rise. I don't recall an attack against us after 911 while Bush was in office. Correct me if I am incorrect.

Clubber,

There were several high-profile terrorist attacks inside the U.S. during the Bush administration, including the anthrax attacks, the fatal shooting at the El Al airlines ticket counter at the Los Angeles International Airport, the DC-area sniper attacks -- all of which occurred in 2002. In addition, there was a 2003 attack on a U.S. diplomatic vehicle that killed three in the Gaza Strip. Three American security personnel were killed while transporting diplomats from the U.S. Embassy in Tel Aviv. With the exception of the Lybian embassy, which is technically US domain, I don't see evidence that terrorism is on the rise.

I don't really think the D.C. sniper and the anthrax attacks were quite in the same league, at best they were domestic terrorism. If you want to include those, you've also got the bomb plot in NYC not too long ago, the underwear bomb, the shooting at Ft. Hood and the shooting of Gabriel Gifford all under Obama's watch.

Bush smashed the Taliban and decimated al-Qaeda, sending them all running into Pakistan to hide. His administration also curtailed the flow of money to those groups. Anything Obama has done has run parallel to what he said he would AND things he criticized the Bush administration for doing.

Gabrielle Giffords was not shot by a terrorist.

Well the good news is that political arguments such as this are no longer relevant - the election is over and now it is time to turn our thoughts to more important topics - lap dances.

tittyfuck: "Gabrielle Giffords was not shot by a terrorist."

Yeah, no shit, genius. Got anything else that is completely obvious to tell us?

Ironcat,

As jester implies, you are comparing apples and oranges. It is a somewhat blurred line between domestic and foreign terrorism. Also, I didn't say it, but I was speaking of attacks on US soil.

jester also mentions the Fort Hood shooting as terrorism, and I agree. Yet according to THIS administration, it was "work place violence". WEAK, my friend, WEAK!!!

Clubber,

Not that I am trying to provoke an argument, but how could Romney or any other President prevent some guy from doing something like the Fort Hood incident? Just wondering.

Did the Fort Hood guy have any links to a terrorist organization? I don't recall hearing that he did. I would have to say that "lone nut jobs" don't qualify as "terrorists" where I think you need some kind of organization well beyond "one". (And, yes, I do realize that the means I don't that Norwegian nutjob was a terrorist either despite how high the body count he wracked up was.)

My point was the same can be said for the El-Al shooting, DC sniper attacks and the anthrax attacks.

Che,

An excellent post.