Tearful Obama and other Weepers

    By Florida Bill

                      There are times when we feel that every move of politicians is scripted and perhaps practiced in front of a critical staff, or at least a mirror. Is crying in public one of those well-rehearsed acts, a special skill in the repertoire of an able politician, or is it a genuine response on the part of a caring representative of the people?

                    It is hard to come up with an across-the-board conclusion about the sincerity of such tears. And it may be equally difficult to assess how the public will react to having their leaders suddenly start sobbing in public.
                   President Obama will now take his place alongside other politicians who have rolled out Olympic-sized tears to emphasize a point.  Obama broke down crying as he called for new gun laws, recalling the shooting of young children in a Connecticut elementary school. That televised display of emotion might be more justified than many we have observed, as the President displayed understandable melancholy in reminding viewers of small children gunned down in the Sandy Hook classroom.  Actually it was not the first time for Obama.  He wept in 2012, a few days after his reelection, while delivering a thank you to his campaign workers for their tireless work on his behalf. That display of tears probably doesn't have quite as much resonance among the public, and it is doubtful many viewers  at home sniffled along with him.
                       Whether Obama's teary-eyed performance will benefit him in persuading Congress to assist him in passing gun control measures, which might violate the second amendment, remains to be seen.  However, it is doubtful that republicans who control both houses of Congress will see it Obama's way.
                     There have been times when choking up and weeping has backfired on emotional politicians. You just never know what the public reaction will be. Some years ago in London, the leader of the Social Democratic Party, Robert MacLennan, was speaking publicly of a need for a merger with another party.  So intense were his feelings for the need to merge the two parties, that he spoke haltingly and wept uncontrollably.  Ultimately, the merger took place, but from that time on MacLennan was referred to as "Blubbering Bob."
                            During the 11 years of Iron Lady Margaret Thatcher in England, microphone sobbing was out of character--as Bob MacLennan learned.  However, with the passing of years and the onset of  political correctness, British commentators say public crying by politicians is now looked upon with respect and admiration.

                           If a politician cannot cry, he is not in touch with himself and therefore cannot be in touch with and understand the cares and concerns of the people.  So much for the old stiff upper lip. In Australia some years ago, Bob Hawke broke down in tears while admitting that he had cheated on his wife.  His tears won over the electorate, but not his wife. She eventually divorced him.
                           In Iran, politicians often cry, and close watchers of the policy have said that "it helps to humanize them and to signal their concern for the plight of average Iranians."  So it was not unusual when former President Ahmadinejad wept at the funeral of the left wing Hugo Chavez.
                           One of the most glaring examples of weeping that seemed to turn off the voters occurred when Ed Muskie, a former governor and senator from Maine, was campaigning for the presidency in 1972.  He was popular and admired.  Yet when asked about news stories criticizing his wife, his response was mixed with weeping, and many pundits feel his emotional tearing up and news stories of the incident knocked his campaign off track.  Muskie always argued that the water streaming down his face was from melted snowflakes, but no one really bought the explanation.  In political parlance today, a tearful response is known as a "Muskie Moment."  Likewise, former Ohio Senator George Voinovich once broke down on the senate floor and wept in a speech opposing the appointment of John Bolton as ambassador to the United Nations.  The senator castigated Bolton as a "bully."  For his emotional performance, Voinovich was called a "crying clown" and a "teary-eyed rebel," but Bolton never obtained senate confirmation for the post.
                        But if a politician once breaks down in tears over a tragic story, does that not reflect coldly on times when he or she does not feel the need to shed a tear? While President Obama may well have picked the right tone for a discussion of slain children, can we rightfully conclude he doesn't care enough to shed a tear if he remains dry-eyed over something like the video-taped beheadings of Americans, like journalist James Foley, by Islamic terrorists?
                    Perhaps conservative Americans would not accuse him of sympathy for the religion he followed as a boy if he were a little more emotional and accusatory about the savagery displayed by the radical Islamists he refuses to name as such. No one would be likely to call him "Blubbering Barack" if he shed a few tears on behalf of the family of Jim Foley.
                  Examples of how unpredictable the political results of a few sobs can be to dot history, which makes it hard for public officials to figure out whether they should fight to hold their emotions in check, or just let it flow.
                When Richard Nixon was a candidate for vice president in the l950s, he was accused of behavior designed to benefit himself financially.  He went on television and delivered what is now called "the Checkers speech" and though he did not weep, he  was choked up and emotional in denying any dishonesty in his life.  The rather standoffish Nixon popularity was said to grow after his heartfelt display of feelings, and he remained a candidate for vice president and was elected with President Eisenhower and served in that office for eight years.

                          On the campaign trail, Hillary Clinton is a woman who has perfected the art of fibbing and fudging along her political way.  She often chokes and gets teary-eyed on television.  New York Times columnist Maureen Dowd once asked if "Hillary can cry her way back to the White House."   In 2008, as she prepared for the New Hampshire primary, she wept and said that it (the campaign) is all very personal for me...It is not just political."  She won that primary over Obama.  Her husband, the former president, who is no stranger to public pathos, congratulated her upon winning in New Hampshire and then broke down in tears exclaiming to the crowd that "I am so proud of her."
                           Personally, I remember well the unexpected weeping from Chicago Mayor Michael Bilandic during a press conference in which he was lamenting the inability of the fire department union to obtain a deserved raise.  The issue seemed sort of mundane, but Bilandic became distraught and tears rolled down his flushed cheeks. Eventually, firemen did get a raise in salary, but Bilandic himself got beaten by Jane Byrne in a primary election thereafter.   Bilandic had become mayor and served for two years following the death of Mayor Richard J. Daley in 1976.
                             Perhaps political strategists can study some of these examples and try to come up with a checklist for their candidates on when it is okay to squeeze out a few tears, and when downcast eyes and a quivering lip might be the better choice.  

                                                   xxx