The majority of the time, loss is caused by the exclusion of a valued item or creature. Most cases of loss can cause unpleasant feelings. Many were stunned that Obamas needed to acknowledge the loss of their dog. Problem is not with the animal itself but its value to the Obamas. It was the death of the beloved dog who served as the White House’s official pet under Barack Obama. This is a perfect example of how we feel about loss. A person’s death or the death of an object should be cause for grief. The Obamas’ dog loss offers a unique opportunity to look at grief in a way that encourages acceptance rather than mourning. Although the Obamas felt sad over the passing of their ‘Portuguese Water Dog’, the general public was shocked by their actions. It is important to note that the Obamas’ personal experience with loss and how it was handled are relevant to loss management. Sigmund Freud was one of the first to distinguish between grief and sorrow. Freud believes that grief is a set of bodily actions, like weeping after loss. (Rando 2018). These are the actions one might associate with the loss of a pet or cherished item. Freud’s question is relevant because, in most cases, we can control the crying or weeping associated with property loss. Many of the grief-related activities are therefore optional. The question is, is grieving an act of gratitude or a way to express sorrow? It tells us a lot about the Obamas’ way of commemorating the death of their White House dog. Freud demonstrated that mourning allows individuals to move on from loss. This can be done privately, and not like sobbing or crying in public. Cramer, 2020. This was one of many ways that the Obamas displayed to the public their love for their White House service dog. The Obamas actions must be viewed in light of the loss, and the process of mourning. It is worrying that Obamas revealed that they lost one of their closest friends. It wasn’t the dog’s worth to the founder family, in this case.