Search Box

Thursday, January 7, 2016

Obama's tears


Yesterday Samuel Nock asked me (in the comments section after The vagueness of the Left) what I made of Obama's tears at his news conference announcing his new gun control measures: were they genuine or some cynical ploy?

I answered by saying, basically, that I wasn't sure.

But I've thought about it a little more since, and have come to the conclusion that Obama's tears were neither, and both.

Let me explain. I don't think Obama was crying with spontaneous sadness about the students who died in Roseburg, Oregon, or in Newtown, Connecticut, or at Virginia Tech, or at Columbine (yes, he reached that far back). He has mentioned these mass killings before without breaking down; and if he hadn't cried about them right after they happened, why, after the passage of time, would they affect him this way now? (Shedding tears about, say, the Nepalese earthquake victims might make sense right after the event; but if you didn't know any of the victims personally, would it make sense to start crying about them years later?)

Obama has tried hard not to let any of these mass killings/crises go to waste in recent years. If it's a white killing blacks, as with Dylan Roof in Charleston, he uses the killings as an example of what a horribly racist society we live in. If it's a black killing whites, as in Roseburg, Oregon, he uses it as an example of the destruction caused by those horrible Republicans who won't pass stricter gun control laws. But the point is, Obama has never cried in the past while making such political hay.

At the same time, I also don't think his tears were some cynical ploy, a la Bill Clinton's wiping away of imaginary crocodile tears.

No Drama Obama has never been one to turn on the waterworks in order to appear "caring." And he has certainly never shed any public tears over the more than 300 children he himself has killed -- as "collateral damage" -- through his drone attacks. (That number, by the way, is far more than the combined total of all the mass killings he referenced in his speech on gun control.)

Even when at the funeral of someone you'd think he might actually grieve for -- Nelson Mandela -- Obama spent his time in the gallery taking smiling selfies with the Danish Prime Minister: 


Here's another picture of Obama trying to contain his grief at Mandela's funeral service:


I suggested yesterday that Obama was probably exhausted, or disheartened about some private, personal matter, and the tears just happened to emerge at this opportune moment, and somehow got conflated with sadness for the dead children.

Yesterday afternoon, the picture became a little clearer. News came out that the House of Representatives passed, for the first time, a bill which would repeal Obamacare in its entirety. Obama is certain to veto the bill, but nonetheless, the fact that the bill has now passed both the House and Senate is of huge symbolic significance, and highlights the fact that many consider Obamacare a complete failure. 

Obamacare is, as has been pointed out by many others, the signature achievement of Obama's Presidency. It's the bill he spent the most political capital to get passed, the one most closely associated with him. Obama has been mostly in recusal mode when it comes to foreign policy, and race relations have, not by coincidence, only deteriorated on his watch. But he's always had Obamacare as his legacy-to-be. 

Obama would obviously have been well aware that Congress was about to vote to repeal his signature bill, and he was undoubtedly feeling put upon and depressed about that. Maybe he'd even lost sleep over it, and was exhausted. He undoubtedly felt as if he was being picked on by that mean, bullying Congress.

It was with that emotional backdrop that Obama delivered his speech about gun control. He was feeling weary and dispirited to begin with, so the tears were closer to the surface. When they actually came, the President, of course, ascribed them to his feelings for all those dead children. But if you've witnessed Obama's previous emotional nonreactions to dead children, and are familiar with his narcissism, it was hard not to come to the conclusion that his tears were in fact more closely connected to the impending vote to repeal Obamacare. 

Tears are a funny thing. Sometimes they come at the most inopportune moments, precisely because they're not supposed to. I always thought this was the case with John Boehner, whose frequent crying must have been extremely embarrassing for him. If crying in public is your biggest fear, then you are much more likely to do it. 

Obama's tears came at an opportune moment. The media, of course, put the best possible spin on them: that they were evidence of how much Obama cared about the children. But if you believe that, you also have to believe that John Boehner was nicer, more caring, and more kindhearted than your average politician. The media certainly never put that spin on Boehner, and I don't believe he was, either. 

But I also don't believe it about Obama, who has never cried before in public about any of those dead children, not right after they died, and not even when meeting with their parents in the immediate aftermath. 

His tears on Monday were more closely connected to Obamacare's brush with death. That, after all, has his name on it.  

35 comments:

Samuel Nock said...

Very interesting take that one wouldn't read anywhere else. You draw a very perceptive connection on Obamacare.

I would just highlight one of the points you made in this post: An "event" like this, in a sense, says more about the media than it does about the public figure.

The media will spin it anyway they want, and that spin becomes the story. If its George W. Bush, the story will be that its crocodile tears, or cynicism or even that he's being unmanly. If its Obama, they spin it as how caring, empathetic and kind and open he is. If it's Boehner, they just mock him for how incongruous it usually was. (In the last case, that was the reality.)

John Craig said...

Samuel --
Thank you.

Agreed, the media will spin something like this any way they want. They feel it is there prerogative to make sure the first draft of history is as sympathetic to the Left -- and leftists -- as it can possibly be. Even when their guy is a sociopath and the opposition is not.

Anonymous said...

So, Obama shed tears over the repeal of Obamacare? How sad. The loss of innocent people (from deadly attacks) doesn't cause our President to get emotional, however, the defeat of a bill (a thing), causes him to get all choked up.

-birdie

John Craig said...

Birdie --
I certainly can't advance that theory as proven fact, but given his history, that's what seems to me to be the most likely explanation for his tears.

Anonymous said...

I think you're right about Obama - you're perceptive and logical. When it comes to actual human tragedies, Obama is cold, indifferent, lacking a sensitivity chip.

-birdie

John Craig said...

Thank you Birdie.

Pavonine99 said...

What do you think Boehner's deal is?

John Craig said...

Pavonine --
Honestly, I don't know, just some weird psychological quirk. It's weird because he seems to tough otherwise. But, different people are tough in different ways, and we all have weaknesses.

(And they said my psychology degree was wasted!)

Lady Bug, Former and Future Panther said...

I just saw the clip on TV - did you catch that after he talked about Newtown (very movingly), said, "and by the way, this happens on the streets of Chicago every day."

Hm. Interesting.

I had actually wondered why Obama didn't do this linkage during Newtown - I guess the opportunism would have been a bit much, even for him. But he did it now.

Maybe it's really the thought of all those little black kids getting shot that brings on his tears? I don't mean to suggest he doesn't feel bad about the little white kids in Newtown - I think he does - but what really got him emotionally was the black kids, whose deaths don't evoke national horror. And the reason for that is that black-on-black violence is ho-hum. And the reason for that is blacks want it that way.

whorefinder said...

Hmm, very interesting take. Would also be in line with Obama's supreme narcissim: it's not the deaths getting him down, it's the fact that Obama himself will lose at something.

Here's another idea:

Steve Sailer has casually made allusions to an idea that Obama may be bipolar/manic depressive. That is, Obama seems to go through phases of frenzied activity/work only to be followed by months of lackluster, listless, debbie-downer appearances. During those down periods, a manic depressive would be, ahem, depressed, and it would take very little to set off tears.

And Obama has completely failed at gun control in his regime, despite believing his own hype that he could do everything, even "lower the seas." (Google it). He's sold more guns by his threats, and everyone is ignoring his misdirection and focusing on the immigrants he let in. One of his handlers, Rahm Emmanuel, is facing a possible recall and revolt in Chicago where gun killings have skyrocketing despite strict gun control. His speech was defeatist, almost like he was going through the motions, like a class jock suddenly meeting a bigger jock and, instead of rising to the challenge, giving up. His tears would have been about his own failure, his own exposed ego.

And, most notably, his executive actions, while threatening to gun rights and should be opposed, aren't that radical. The story was he was meeting over the weekend to discuss legal strategies to bypass congress, and then delivered this speech. I'll bet he wanted to do something bold and memorable, only to be told by everyone that it wouldn't fly in court and make him the bad guy even more(even, perhaps, Lynch said this). They told him to do this sop, and he just sort of gave up on the way in.

All of these combined could make him sob like a whipped puppy.

Third idea:

Michelle told him just before the speech she was going to divorce him come the end of his term.

It's pretty obvious she doesn't love him and is heading for the door once the presidency ends; she not only has open contempt/bitch face at him it public, but she originally didn't even plan to move into the White House with him, instead wanting to stay in Chicago while he moved to the White House. And then she skipped his mega-bash birthday party early in his regime, where even Oprah was in attendance. She's never seen what whitey thought was so special in him, as he's a milquetoast brother and she likes 'em bold and dirty (as Sailer pointed out, she was Jesse Jackson's children's babysitter as a teen girl, and such a strong male adult being around and in charge of her would have naturally fed a schoolgirl crush).

And let's not forget that once he abandoned a presidential press conference half-way through (!), and let Bill Clinton (!) do the rest of it, because Obama'd "kept Michelle waiting for over half an hour." Yes, that was his excuse! The fact that he would use such a weak excuse (whether true or a cover) demonstrates that this man feels subservient to his own wife, fearing her, making it a relationship where she's looking for the door and he's desperately trying to please her (beta behavior).

John Craig said...

Lady Bug --
I think Obama made that throwaway line -- "and by the way, this happens on the streets of Chicago every day" -- because he felt obliged to. Black street/gang murderers are never given much attention by the media, which wants to maintain the myth that we live in a country where violent whites hunt innocent blacks, yet everyone knows that's not true, and Obama felt he had to inject a small note of realism. I agree with you that he does care more about blacks being killed than whites being killed, but if he really wanted to stop those killings he'd encourage more stop and frisk (more gun regulations certainly don't stop those gang members from obtaining guns); but stop and frisk doesn't square with the reigning liberal ideology since any realistic application of it would focus on young black men, so it remains a nonstarter.

Anyway, even if he cares more about the young blacks being killed than the young whites, it's never been enough to bring him to public tears in the past. My theory -- and obviously, I can't prove this -- is that it's Congress's "bullying" of him with their repeal of Obamacare that made him feel put upon and brought him to tears.

John Craig said...

Whorefinder --
I think Sailer may be right about Obama's being bipolar. That would fit with the tears now but not before, and with all of that smiling and joking around at Mandela's funeral.

I don't think Obama cares enough about Emanuel to let Emanuel's problems get him down. He's too narcissistic for that. But yes, he probably is feeling somewhat discouraged that he can't do what he wants re: gun control.

Agreed, Michelle doesn't love him. But he doesn't love her, either, and she has never been anything but a beard for him:

http://justnotsaid.blogspot.com/2012/09/is-obama-gay.html

So that's nothing new, and I doubt the thought of a divorce from her would get him down. As it is, they can't stand each other and take separate planes when they go on vacation, at great taxpayer expense.

I honestly think it was the idea of his signature legislation being repealed that got him down. He knows he can veto the repeal now, but he also knows that if a Republican gets elected President in '16, his legacy goes poof.

Lucian Lafayette said...

A number of years ago there was a very interesting article concerning Barry's religious beliefs. The conclusion was that the only God he really believed in was "the one he sees in the mirror every morning." It certainly would be upsetting to see the legacy of your deity endangered. As you said John, those years may have been real but they weren't motivated by the national homicide rate.

John Craig said...

Luke --
That's a great line about Obama, and it rings true. And yes, he may have been immersed in Islam as a child in Indonesia, and he may have attended the Reverend Wright's church for 17 years, but he's not a religious creature. It's his narcissism that drives him, and shapes his thinking, and his worldview.

mark said...

Another theory. Obama is a progressive. Progressives have to start somewhere and if Obama could start restricting guns a little bit then some time in the future "meaningful" gun legislation will pass and he can think he had a hand in it. With some of his speeches Obama thought he could bring the country together. Bush thought he could too. I think it is possible, highly unlikely, but these candidates speaking in front of thousands of people really become convinced of that. Plus, Obama is just weird. I mean Hawaii, Harvard and Chicago is just a strange combination that perhaps, not one of five billion people share. He seems to have rejected his legitimate tie to rural America, his mother's family which is what the previous two administrations would have emphasized. Not the most charitable post but I like your blog.

John Craig said...

Mark --
Obama is just narcissistic enough to have thought that everybody would love him, despite the fact that he is at heart a far left radical. I actually think the gun proposals he made were not bad; I don't know how anyone could argue with universal background checks and getting rid of unlicensed dealers. In fact, I've talked to a gun nut who agrees that those are good ideas. of course, if Obama could have his heart's desire on this issue, he'd confiscate every gun out there.

Yes, Obama's background, which also includes Indonesia, is unique, but what shaped his personality more than anything was the fact that neither of his parents loved him. He never knew his father, and his mother was willing to give him up for a year twice by the time he was sixteen. And, when neither parent loves you, the odds are you're going to grow up to be a narcissist personality, if not a sociopath.

Thanks re: the blog. It was never meant to be "charitable," by the way, only realistic.

Anonymous said...

John

You definitely use your psychology degree, helping others understand what causes others to tick, appreciating the fact that you're a good judge of character (you're gifted in this way).

-birdie

John Craig said...

Birdie --
Thank you very much, but in fact my psychology degree was near useless; I graduated without any clue as to what a sociopath was, I learned about them at the same school you did.

(Also, my comment about my degree was actually sort of a joke, Pavonine had just made a similar comment about his English degree on the 2/29/12 "Consistency" post.)

Anonymous said...

Your commenters make some really good points, expanding my thinking about Obama. When reading about Obama, I feel somewhat sorry for him, having two parents who didn't love him, show him love, nurture him. Narcissistic parents (and I'm assuming Obama's parents were narcissistic) do not make good parents. The children are at a disadvantage from having these types of parents, causing them to not be whole, well developed individuals. Really, what a shame.

-birdie

Anonymous said...

I realize that you were kidding, but wanted to let you know that I also can see how your understanding of human psychology, is a plus to your readers (putting your college degree to good use). Like I said, you're a good judge of character, connecting the dots (the personal history that we know about others), explaining why others do what they do.

-birdie

John Craig said...

Birdie --
No question about it, Obama was definitely emotionally stunted by his background. The weird thing is, because he's not a particularly masculine guy, he comes across nonthreatening and not like anyone's preconception of a "villain." And everybody, when they first saw him flashing that big smile, assumed he was a nice, regular guy. Martin Shkreli actually "looks" like a nice guy, too, which must have fooled some people when he first met them, simply because he's not all testosterone up and threatening. But a lack of male hormones doesn't necessarily equal decency.

John Craig said...

PS -- Thank you Birdie.

Anonymous said...

I know the type. My kids' father comes across as a "nice, regular guy," but he's anything but - he lacks common decency.

-birdie

Gilbert Ratchet said...

OT: is this guy worth a sociopath alert?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marc_Gafni

John Craig said...

Gilbert --
He sure gives off those vibes. I've known of almost no serial sexual abusers who were not, and the fact that he is a self-proclaimed man of god with his own religious philosophy -- cult, if you will -- also gives off those vibes. I have my hands full with other stuff right now, so probably won't write it, but agree with your assessment completely.

whorefinder said...

@John Craig:

I think the smiling/joking at Mandela's funeral was just his natural narcissism combined with the fact that Obama really never considered himself "black", he just used it as a convenient stepping stone at Harvard Law, and later Chicago. He, like his mother, considered himself "multicultural", and his very long period growing up in SouthEast Asia and Hawaii would have separated him from any other American blacks who would have insisted on his adopting a Black Uber Alles attitude. So unlike with Western intellectual blacks like, say, Bill Cosby (heh), Mandela wasn't anything to Obama. His death meant as much to Obama as the death of any foreign leader that you never heard of.

I agree he doesn't care about Emmaneul as a person, but a chief of staff (especially a violent firebrand like Emmaneul) keeps the president from most of the internal/press-based political harm he could receive. Emmaneul was very much in control there, so seeing Emmaneul lose control and have the scandals envelope him has to make Obama feel insecure. Obama suddenly is feeling fear---if they can get to a tough Israeli-operative bodyguard-of-Obama, than they can get to Obama.


Agreed, Michelle doesn't love him. But he doesn't love her, either, and she has never been anything but a beard for him

However, I think Obama secretly envied the two-parent household. As a narcissist, he had to wonder why all his friends had stable families while his own parents didn't love him. In a quest to prove he was perfect, he got himself a wife and kids---the stability was further proof he was perfect. His gay dalliances aside, he's a gay who wants it all--the perfect family AND the wild sexual private life (where he is the prize, of course).

Narcissists always believe they can have it all because they are "special". To have that fantasy apart is devastating to his ego. Many narcissists with a marriage falling apart resort to either a full-blown mental breakdown or else become wildly violent ("you'll never leave me!"); this is why many gay "relationships" end with either a suicide attempt or in abuse by the leavee on the leaver. Obama, as a milquetoast brother, is having the former (although I don't think he will commit suicide, I'll bet he's thinking about it constantly, hence the tears), if I am right in my guess that Michelle told him it's over (and that's a huge guess, obviously, but this speculation is fun!).

John Craig said...

Whorefinder --
I agree with all of your points except the one about Obama not considering himself black. It's true that being black was in a sense an adopted identity, since he knew very few blacks while growing up in Kansas and Indonesia and Hawaii, but as an adopted identity, it's in a way stronger for him. His instincts seem to be to automatically side with blacks, as he showed with that incident between the Cambridge cop and Professor Gates, and with Trayvon Martin and George Zimmerman, and with his tacit encouragement of all of Eric Holder's actions. But I think he has to make an attempt to come across black, and feels he has something to prove in that regard. Witness his down home brother accent when he speaks in a black church -- it's not quite a convincing accent, but it's certainly not the same accent he uses when addressing a white audience. What I think he feels most strongly, rather than real identification with other blacks, is resentment of whites. He resented his own mother, and over time I'm sure he developed a resentment for all of the whites who obviously thought of him as "the other." And that probably included all of the liberals who were overly polite to him as well as the whites who just didn't bother to be friendly -- or make the effort to see his self-perceived greatness.

whorefinder said...

@John Craig:

Interesting that you think Obama now identifies as black. I can't agree, but I see your argument.

Here's my thoughts: See, I still see his "black identity" as a Chicago-convenient adoption that has carried him through. I believe Obama never really adopted an identity, but saw himself "above it all" as a narcissist. However, since Valerie Jarrett is his major, #1 adviser, and she is (by many accounts) a hate-whitey-black from Chicago (especially the Irish), and Obama's major backer George Soros is a the #1 force in riling up blacks on racial issues (Soros is the money behind the Ferguson and Baltimore riots and the BLM movement)---well those two facts alone would make him allow the black-racial-hate-mongers to run wild in his administration. Eric Holder's investigations were a natural outgrowth of this policy. But then we must remember this:

Obama lost his first political race. His biggest problem in his first political race was not being "authentically black." He lost to another black politician who used this as his campaign tool.

To a lazy narcissist like Obama, who has never had to work for much in his life, and always had awards and honors handed to him because he just showed up, this loss must have seriously disrupted his amygdala. He didn't win, despite showing up, and he was humiliated in the process. I'll bet it was the closest he ever was to suicide: "How could I lose? Am I really not great at all?"

As a result, Obama decided he would never get into a race where he could be "out-blacked" again. So now, I think Obama's political instinct is to double-down on all black-white racial issues in the camp of the darky. He has that residual fear from his first, only, and psychologically devastating loss, and wants to insulate himself from ever having that charge and subsequent ego-destroying loss. Hence also why he's invited Reverend Al Sharpton to the White House so many times---cover. Al Sharpton has nothing to offer any public figure but cover; he's a bombastic professional shakedown artist. The only way Obama he could get even blacker political cover would be if Louis Farrakhan or the Black Panthers were his advisers---and I think he calculated that was a bridge too far.

Now, many light-skinned blacks feel the need to prove their "blackness" because they are so light skinned that they fear darker skinned blacks will reject them, and so go to ridiculous extremes (e.g. Melissa Harris-Perry); however, Obama, who is medium-skinned and never sought black acceptance for its own sake but for political convenience, I believe goes full black not for personal identification purposes, but because of PTSD of every time he thinks of losing that first race: "If I don't come out as black guy, I'll lose and be a loser!"

This is all very similar to George W. Bush. W. lost an early political race to a politician who painted him as an unChristian , rich snobby carpetbagger East Coaster. In response, W. famously said he'd never be “out-Christianed or out-good-old-boyed” again, and thus kept that persona throughout his entire life, out of narcissistic fear/instinct. He thus let that persona lead him to aggressive foreign posturing as he imagined a tough guy, redneck "good ol' boy" would do--not because he was one, but because he had a residual ego-protecting fear of losing another race if he didn't double down.

I think it takes an excessive amount of narcissism to be a president these days. Unfortunately, it leads to some heavy negative consequences for the rest of us.

John Craig said...

Whorefinder --
You're absolutely right, Obama did lose to Bobby Rush back in '00 for that House of Representatives seat because the local electorate saw Rush as being one of them more than Obama was. Rush's famous quote from that campaign: "I lived the civil rights movement; Barack just read about it." (Pretty good line, actually.)

Great point about how lighter-skinned blacks have to prove their blackness. Jeremiah Wright, Obama's former pastor, may be a good example of that. He looks as if he's less than 50% black, and most of his flock is a lot darker-skinned than he is.

I'd never realized that about George W. Bush, that's a great analysis, and it makes perfect sense. His good ol' boy act was always obviously somewhat phony. He went to Andover and Yale, and his grandfather was a Senator from Connecticut. And neither of his parents had any sort of Southern accent.

mark said...

Thank you for your response. I really did not care for Bush. I think he thought the Iraq war would be a fairly easy win. If it had, we might consider him a great President who threw all his political capital on the table and won. I thought the surge was just Bush clinging to any chance that might make Iraq turn out well. Now Bush Senior, didn't gamble but let his political capital evaporate and I think this had to effect W's thinking.

Back to Obama, I'm not really disagreeing with you but I think his rootlessness is separate from any narcissism he might have. Why would you not think about living near your grandma after all she did for you when you can make a good living anywhere and we are talking about Hawaii? Obama just doesn't really ping my gaydar(if he had he would not be President) but going to a live anonymously in a big city is kind of gay. Good old boy Bush at least, lives in Texas as opposed to Clinton(Arkansas) and probably Obama in the future.

John Craig said...

Mark --
Sure. I preferred Bush the elder myself.

True, Obama is more than just his narcissism, even though that informs his every word and action. He does have a unique background, and undoubtedly thinks of himself as cosmopolitan. He didn't set off my gaydar at first either, but once I'd read in a couple places that he might be gay, it sort of all came together for me, and now I'm convinced that he is. That said, that wouldn't have prevented me from voting for him if I'd liked him otherwise, but in fact his being on the down low is just one more aspect of him being a con man.

Anonymous said...

http://www.tampabay.com/projects/2016/features/the-long-fall-of-phoebe-jonchuck/


Classic pcychopath from Irish. As in people say he was born evil....

John Craig said...

Anon --
Wow, you're not kidding. He does seem to have been born evil. And his bipolar disorder undoubtedly only exacerbated the way he expressed his sociopathy, at both ends of his emotional spectrum.

Anonymous said...

If you read articles about the man who threw his daughter off a bridge, his parents weren't anything to rave about, in my opinion, causing his psychopathy.

-birdie

John Craig said...

Birdie --
Agreed, that man was from a very dysfunctional background, though he himself represented the apex of sociopathy, even within his family. Even his relatives thought of him as bad seed.