The most memorable aspect of Obama's inauguration address was how forgettable it was. He is a victim of the high standards He had set in His campaign speeches, particularly the Election Night sermon. But it was not just, yawn, pedestrian by Obama standards, but by the standards of mere mortal presidents. We remember the inaugural addresses of Franklin Roosevelt, John Kennedy, Ronald Reagan, and George W. Bush (2nd inaugural) because they permanently etched a line or two into our brains. Obama didn't do that. There is no highlight reel line, no quote for Mr. Bartlett.

Obama spoke of "big plans" but, still in campaign mode, didn't bother outlining any plan, let alone a "big" one. It's an inauguration address and not a state of the union, so a laundry list of programs would be inappropriate. But even in comparison to other inaugurals, vagueries and platitudes were in abundance. The weather analogies were stale and tedious. All of the "gathering clouds and raging storms," "the icy currents," and the "storms [that] may come" conjured up images not of an inaugural address, but of a conference room littered with pizza boxes and amateurs--devising what they imagine an inaugural address should sound like.

If He accentuated the existing negatives to boost His future positives, Obama suceeded only in delivering a depressing, downer of a speech when the moment called for uplift and renewal. He gracelessly and unsubtly stuck it to his predecessor several times, e.g., imagery of broken "levees," declarations that "we are ready to lead once more," and talk of rejecting "as false the choice between our safety and our ideals." The campaign is over, and George Bush was never on the ballot anyhow. Other than sharp rhetoric occasionally directed at His predecessor, He is tepid and reluctant to offend. Obama quoted the Bible and mentioned God, but then He was also quick to mention "non believers"--a phrase certainly unfit for the throngs gathered. For the President serenaded by a multicultural quartet--an Hispanic pianist, a Jewish violinist, a Chinese cellist, and a black clarinetist--inclusion is a must, which might explain the inclusion of an extra president in his speech. "Forty-four Americans have now taken the presidential oath," He explained. But only forty-three men have been U.S. president (Grover Cleveland served non-sequential terms, which is why we refer to Obama as the forty-fourth president). Could He have been giving props to President J.F. Davis as part of His message of inclusion?

The fruit loops outside of the barricades at the last two inaugurations made their way inside this time around. How else does one explain the taunt, "Nah, nah, nah, nah, hey, hey, hey, goodbye," to outgoing President George W. Bush? They trashed offices and lifted "W" keys from White House computers when he came into office. They boo and break out into sporting-arena chants when he departs. What the crowd lacked in class it made up in numbers. Today, Obama transformed the Capital Mall into a massive port-a-potty; tomorrow, America.

One would think that at an occasion as fancy as a presidential inauguration, they could at least spring for a poet capable of rhyming. Even Ludacris reciting that vulgar rap about Hillary Clinton would have been better. Words that I never thought I'd say: Aretha Franklin sucked. Rick Warren, you are nothing if not verbose. Worst fashion statement: Dick Cheney impersonating Dr. Evil in his wheel chair (Or was it Dr. Evil who impersonated Dick Cheney?). What did it say? I told you I'd never stand for this turkey! Best fashion statement: George H.W. Bush channelling Daniel Boone with his coonskin cap. What did it say? I am too old, too accomplished, and too comfortable to care what I look like on national television. The Rev. Joe Lowery, on the other hand, was inauguration day's big octogenarian loser. His clock apparently stopped sometime around 1957. What type of prayer concludes with an insult of white people? It was Barack Obama's inauguration, not Theodore Bilbo's. And Rick Warren is the controversial one?

If you belonged to the where's-Obama's-birth-certificate club, then promptly thank Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts for giving your movement a second wind. I can hear it now: Obama isn't the rightful president! He didn't take the oath of office correctly! Perhaps this was part of the longstanding Cheney-Bush plot to stage a coup d'etat on inauguration day that I have been hearing so much about these last eight years. If you believe as I do that we are just characters in some Great Novelist's story, then flubbing something as basic as the oath of office is what is known as foreshadowing.

A strange day. It is fascinating to watch the adolescent behavior of otherwise reasoning, mature people, when Obama appears. It seems to be the negative image of their response to George Bush - or should I say the positive to Bush's negative? It occurs to me they are inexorably linked in some way. Regardless, there is too much of emotion invested in these polar opposite reactions.

"If you believe as I do that we are just characters in some Great Novelist's story, then flubbing something as basic as the oath of office is what is known as foreshadowing."

No Kidding! We have Kennedy's seizure and a man who got hit by a train(?) and the stocks just took a tumble! Yikes! I'm not superstitious but I'm having second thoughts.

Luckily, I avoided any news or clips about this nonsense. This post and a few comments at work and from the girlfriend were the extent of my attention devoted to this "historic" day. Yawn.

Btw,

Love the capitalization of all pronouns referring to Obama.

The Lord's Prayer (isolated from the rest of Warren's 'sermon' and the day's silliness) was quite moving. Those words transcend the speaker and the occasion.

Wait a minute, do you mean that America's soul isn't healed and the waters haven't receded. Yet?!

I thought this was the change we were waiting for!

The lefties and the faux Republicans keep saying – wait, give him chance.

I choose to not. The same people who have been beating the crap out of Bush since 00’ and who gave him no quarter to the extent that he was who booed and mocked on the way out, don’t deserve to see their exalted one pampered and supported by the opposition.

Unless I have PROOF that he’s healed America’s soul and see him force the waters to recede (whatever that means?), he will not be given any honeymoon.

Anybody notice that the more the government uses our money to take over businesses, the more the stock market tanks?

Seems that the people who invest in these kinds of things may not be too confident that the government can run anything successfully.

Que?

Funny Dan. The 'messiah' an@logy gets a little disturbing after a while though :)

I just re-read this piece for a second time. I know you know it, but you are an EXCELLENT writer!

So well put.

Should we consider that The One would have been better served taking his oaf, uh, oath of office using a teleprompter? Might have given him the comfort level he's used to that makes him sound so, so, Haaavaaghd.

If anything W was held up to Messiah status and pushed through two elections by the fervently brain-dead religous sect.

Wha....huh...??

Like I said, you obviously haven't been paying attention

No. I'm paying attention. I just don't speak dumbazz.

Ignorance sure is bliss for you...

"If anything W was held up to Messiah status and pushed through two elections by the fervently brain-dead religous sect."

Horse, if you keep this kinda thing up I'm going to have to retract my apology for the manure comment.

I'm evangelical and I'm cool with the reference to non-believers. He was speaking of cross-sections, not faiths:

"For we know that our patchwork heritage is a strength, not a weakness. We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus — and non-believers."

That's fine, we are. I agree with Obama that diversity provides a resilience that uniformity doesn't--especially rigid uniformity.

I probably am not as oblivious to the paradox. If the patchwork heritage also contains a diversity of view on whether or not that patchwork heritage is a strength, is that a strength regardless? Certainly we aren't going to outlaw the opposing view (but maybe), and people still retain their freedom of speech to express that idea, so in a way it's as tolerated a diversity as any other diversity that is tolerated by a group of individuals, because they don't enforce a uniformity on it. But I doubt if they're "equal" in Obama's eyes simply by the act of toleration.

Simple divergence, simple variety, is not a strength. But diverse voices testifying to universals is. It strengthens the confidence in the foundation.

Wow, the liberal MSM is taking over... the top story on Google news was a The Christian Science Monitor piece

Highlander, everyone knows the christian (especially evangelical) vote came out in droves which ended up being the deciding factor in both of W.'s "victories", which was based on the idea that the right wing was the party of 'values'. Their Messiah ended up dicking them over and trampling over most of the reasons they elected him.

This is backed up by David Kuo, former Deputy Director of the Office of Faith-Based and Community Initiatives, as demonstrated here:

"Mr Kuo now says the administration did not fund its faith-based initiatives properly. "Unfortunately, sometimes even the grandly announced 'new' programs aren't what they appear," he wrote on a religious website. "This isn't what was promised." He blamed the failure of the faith-based initiative to address poverty on Democratic hostility to the blurring of the line between church and state, and the "snoring indifference" of congressional Republicans. But he said that "minimal senior White House commitment" helped to kill the initiative.

Do you guys have amnesia, alzheimers or what???

Look what that liberal MSM put out now:
Climate scientists studying global warming now predict that it's highly likely the world is undergoing significant, human-induced climate changes.

http://www.csmonitor.com/globalwarming

"Climate scientists studying global warming now predict that it's highly likely the world is undergoing significant, human-induced climate changes."

If you think about it, that statement makes absolutely no sense: how does one "predict" that it "IS highly likely" that something IS happening now?

Just saying.

(And, btw, the Christian Science Monitor is not Christian -- it's origin is the publication of the heretical cult of Mary Baker Edy -- and it does lean left.)

"Climate scientists studying global warming now predict that it's highly likely the world is undergoing significant, human-induced climate changes."

If you think about it, that statement makes absolutely no sense: how does one "predict" that it "IS highly likely" that something IS happening now?

Just saying.

(And, btw, the Christian Science Monitor is not Christian -- it's origin is the publication of the heretical cult of Mary Baker Edy -- and it does lean left.)

Is scientology any less a form of Christianity than mormanism? The CS Monitor's stories seem rooted in values and ethics (like ethical investing and how prudent donors can follow their dollars), a pretty Christian theme. Those christian themes were heavily associated with the right wing in the last 8 years (but we all know how the conservative/liberal names swiched sides somewhere along the way)

Horse,

So being Christian qualifies as belonging to a "fervently brain-dead religous sect" in your eyes. One of the world's great religions laid low in one sentence. And voting for Bush equates to "Messiah" status. Horse, you give new meaning to the word hyperbole.

BTW, the MSM examples you are presenting so triumphantly are, at best, exceptions to the rule. Mere drops in the ocean. They prove nothing.

Isn't it a curiosity that the second trillion dollars of the BBO (Bogus Bail Out) will be spent at a very slow rate culminating with the bulk of it being spent in the year before the next presidential election cycle?

Only 7% of the money that we are being told is so crucial to our economic survival and needed immediately to save the nation from ruin will be spent this year.

It seems unprecedented that a President could indirectly use tax and U.S. Treasury money to prepare for re-election by providing bribes for certain members of the citizenry and buy votes.

Obamunism on the march?

Horse,

A couple things:

First, Scientology is an entirely different religion than Christian Science. The Hubbardites don’t even pretend to be Christians.

Second, the bounds of Christianity are set by what Irenaeus called the regula fide, or rule of faith. This served and serves as both the fundamental confession of Christianity and the interpretive prism through which to approach Scripture. Essentially, it echoes what Jesus said of Himself: "You search the Scriptures because you think that in them you have eternal life; and it is they that bear witness about me" (John 5:39 cf. Luke 24:27). The Tradition Irenaeus and the fathers carried forth was summed up, then, in the Apostles Creed - which is essentially a restatement of Luke 24:44-49. In the face of heresy, this rule of faith has been more specifically expressed in what we now know as the Nicene Creed. And that has always contained the common confession of both the East and the West, and in the West of both Roman Catholics and Protesting Catholics. (Indeed, the Lutherans went to great pains to demonstrate this common confession in the Augsburg Confession, as did Calvin in his "Institutes". But I digress.) The point being that whatever our differences around the edges and when it comes to certain implications of our faith, we all hold to this common core confession -- outside of which no one can be rightfully considered a Christian.

And it is outside these bounds both Christian Science and Mormonism most certainly fall, regardless of their protests. (For a demonstration in the latter case, see here.) So, e.g., Eric Wilds and I might share the same surname - and even hold much in common otherwise - but that does not make us the same person. Same goes with orthodox Christians and heretics.

Finally, it is not only Christians that hold to values and ethics - nor have we ever claimed such. Pretty much all religions hold to many common values, whether Muslim, Buddhist, or Zoroastrian. Not 100%, but very much so. The point here being that Christian Science has no more claim to being Christian than does Islam. But more to the point of this thread, it doesn’t even determine Left from right. For example, no one ever accused the Christian Socialist Party or adherents of Liberation Theology of being conservative. In fact, the political bent of Christian Science was much more in line with these leftist movements than today’s conservatives, even if they do espouse certain moral platitudes acceptable to the Right.

If you are interested, go here to learn more about what Christian Scientist believe. For info about the CSM, go here.

Er, first name, that is. Not sure what the heck I was thinking when I wrote "surname".

The dog and pony show that was the first swearing in ceremony was screwed up but used an obligatory Bible as a prop to satisfy certain segments of the masses.

The redo second more private ceremony didn't seem to require the prop.

Interesting.

Yes - it was appalling that Obama used Lincoln's Bible.

"So being Christian qualifies as belonging to a "fervently brain-dead religous sect" in your eyes"

I never said that, you inferred to far. I simply said that there were some religious people who put their vote behind bush without knowing what they were really doing because their church leaders told them the republican party was the party of values. The mega churches of evangelicals were the most guilty of this, but I am sure that many other forms of the Judeo-Christian religions did the same. The high emotion that drove them (fervently), and the 'follow the leader' mentality (brain-dead) made people weep for bush as though he was the Second Coming. It turns out they were dead wrong, and He is a highly immoral person. Sound familiar to Obama? Sure. Was it o.k. either time? No. Is it wrong to simply call Obama the Messiah and deny the fervent way that Bush was elected? Yes.

There are other Jews and Christians that didn't just follow the leader, so no, being a Christian didn't simply qualify someone as brain-dead.

"the MSM examples you are presenting so triumphantly are, at best, exceptions to the rule. Mere drops in the ocean."

First comes denial, then anger, then bargaining, then depression, then acceptance. Try and move past step one.

Eric, I feel you and agree that neither really follow the Nicene Creed, and I pretty much lump together anyone who says they follow the words of Christ in the category of Christian. I consider myself a Christian, though I do not follow any version of the Nicene Creed to the T [therefore really call myself agnostic]. I never said that all Christians or the values of 'values and ethics' were always pertaining to the right, but rather usually or "heavily" associated with the conservative movement of Bush.

"Those christian themes [values + ethics] were heavily associated with the right wing in the last 8 years"

If one's beliefs (or the doctrinal position of a church) are opposed to the Nicene Creed, they are unorthodox at the most fundamental level - what CS Lewis described as "mere Christianity." Therefore they are not Christian. This is not to say that one absolutely must consciously confess the very words of the Creed, but that one's beliefs must be found in accord with the particulars of the Creed if examined in its light.

The more pertinent point to this thread, though, was my last above: the CSM is not even conservative in outlook. Therefore it cannot be put forth as evidence in your argument that there is no widespread MSM liberal bias, or even for your tangential point that (paraphrase) "a ha, even conservative media believe this global warming mantra!"

Incidentally, the video and transcript of Helen Thomas saying "'What Else Should a Reporter BE' But a Liberal?" is quite telling. Read about it and watch, here.

I am a bit disappointed at your dismissive reference to the "wheres-obamas-birth-certificate club". Maybe I misread you, but it sounds like you think the people who want Obama to have his birth certificate unsealed are conspiracy kooks.

It is perfectly reasonable to wonder *why* Obama will not release his long form COLB, and to insist that the best way to answer this question is to authorize the state of Hawaii to unseal it.

If I read something into your post that wasn't there, I apologize.

Let's assume for a moment that Obama is foreign born to a foreign citizen. Who will care? I mean, I would, b/c I think the Constitution matters. But do we really think for a moment that anyone in power would give a darn? I mean, hardly a one of them (outside of Ron Paul) cares to follow the Constitution at most other points. What would truly be their beef if the Constitution was ignored at this point, too?

My guess is a few Republicans would raise a big fuss, but only because they lust for power, not b/c they really care about the Constitution. Meanwhile, the Democrats, the media, much of the public, and even some Republicans would yawn and say, "big whup." At most they would pass a law retroactively authorizing Obama to be President (not caring for a minute that they violated the Constitution - again - amending it in such illegal fashion).

All that said, I'm guessing this issue is all smoke, and I'm not going to worry about it. Why? Because even if a fire is somewhere, it will only lead as I described here above.

"And [the Nicene Creed] has always contained the common confession of both the East and the West."

Except for the filioque, of course.

"President Obama made a surprise visit to the White House press corps Thursday night, but got agitated when he was faced with a substantive question. "

No teleprompter; no answers.

This is Change we can believe in!! After all they have done for him, is he wearing out his welcome with the Fourth Estate already? Will this lead to Chris Matthews losing his tingle? Stayed tuned.

Great point, Ralph. The East denied/s that the Holy Spirit proceeds from both the Father *and* the Son, while the West so beleives. This was the (or at least a main) cause of the Schism that seperated East from West. I happily stand corrected in my oversight.

Incidentally, many scholars have argued that though this difference may seem trivial, the practical implications are enormous. They argue that this is a key reason that the East never developed the political and economic liberty (on their own) that we have in the West. This is a digression from conversation above, but I though interesting enough to share.

I love it! Five days in office and it's all falling apart. But the media who NOW love to hate O are doing their best to keep it real to hide the fact that subpoenas have been issued.....

"If this had happened to Bush 43, do you suppose the media would have ignored it? The meme of Karl Rove being frog marched out of the White House would have been born immediately.

Doug highlights the names of the Obama biggies:

David Axelrod, Obama's "Karl Rove" and the biggest surprise on the list. Obama's team issued a report in December that said his staff had no "inappropriate contact" with Blago, so the inclusion of Axelrod is a bit of a shock.

Valerie Jarrett, Blago's "Senate Candidate 1", a real estate management executive and political hack of the first order. Her ties to failed and fraudulent real estate deals in Chicago were the subject of numerous investigations and should have instantly disqualified her for any public office.

Rahm Emanuel was already deeply involved in the case with some reports describing as many as 21 conversations with Blago's office during the period in question.

Tony Rezko, Obama's first advocate, fundraiser and adviser, was convicted last year on numerous charges related to kickbacks, is awaiting sentencing. Rezko is "cooperating with authorities, FBI Agent Daniel Cain said in an affidavit."

Plus, Blago is pizzed and feels screwed by O and the gang. Unless they make it right with him somehow, he will not go away and will, hopefully, be a master whistle blower.