Recently, President Obama has been under heat for taking a vacation during our nation's worst disaster since Hurricane Sandy. Those who criticize Obama for doing this say that he should have been at the disaster site sooner since he represents the United States. After all, how could our very own president be on vacation while there are thousands of victims having to rebuild their lives after this horrific flood?
Before we get angry with Obama for "neglecting" his very own people, let's take a step back. Before we make any judgment calls, let's remember exactly what Obama has the ability to do and whether his presence in Louisiana would help the situation. After all, does Obama have the ability to help those victims any more than rescue and emergency workers do? I highly doubt it, since his specialty is not in rescuing those in dire need.
Rather than going to Louisiana and using up precious resources (such as police, who would need to protect him), Obama chose to stay put where he just so happened to be taking a vacation. What more could Obama have really done if he were in Louisiana as opposed to in Martha's Vineyard? Even more, according to The Washington Post, "the sole reason to go to Louisiana is for the theatrical piece of politics, a piece that he not only rejects but detests."
Although, at first glance, it may seem that Obama's absence at the disaster site is a sign that he is neglecting his fellow American citizens, we need to remember the cost of his presence. Even more, there are many articles circulating the web, only giving half of the picture for why Obama didn't go to Louisiana. Articles such as this one spread misinformation, criticizing politicians who choose not to visit Louisiana and praising those who do. It's also no secret that most of the websites criticizing Obama and praising politicians such as Trump are conservative websites, cherrypicking those who they lambaste and applaud.