President Obama is being lambasted about his lack of emotion, or more interesting, his inability to show emotion about the BP oil spill. Maureen Dowd of the New York Times goes on and on about it, and others in the so-called "main stream" media are also a little too emotional about whether Obama is sufficiently emotional. Newsweek, David Broder and the blogosphere continue to analyze whether the president is too hot or too cold.
Most women are used to being dismissed occasionally as "too emotional" about something or other. No matter who delivers the message, it burns. Temper tantrums are celebrated when BMOC's on the field or in the boardroom do something ordinary, but chicks shedding a few tears or sporting a red face is, well, embarrassing.
Double standards are standards, though, and Mr. Obama might fail his first test.
Just how should a president respond to the worst environmental disaster this generation has ever faced? What is the appropriate tone to take with a multinational corporation who is simultaneously responsible for the catastrophe and the fix? Do you care whether your president can show emotion, or do you want a caring president to show he can lead to the solution of this horrific problem?
When Hillary Clinton choked up in New Hampshire during the presidential primary in 2008 and had her emotional moment, pundits and psychiatrists analyzed and deconstructed every word and all three tears that formed puddles in her eyes as if she had spoken in Russian tongues. It was a transformative moment - for the media.
This cry baby's advice to the president: let a few tears flow for the reporters, and then get back to plugging that damn hole for the rest of us.