As I foresaw, people tried to claim that the muddling of the oath meant that Obama wasn’t president. He actually went ahead and redid it in order to quiet them. And they promptly jumped on the fact that he didn’t swear a second time on a Bible.
And now some people are complaining about the following line in his speech: “We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus, and nonbelievers.”
According to the AOL news feed, that line is drawing fire from religious quarters: “(The President)
seems to be trying to redefine American culture, which is distinctively Christian,” said’ Bishop E.W. Jackson of the Exodus Faith Ministries in Chesapeake, Va. “The overwhelming majority of Americans identify as Christians, and what disturbs me is that he seems to be trying to redefine who we are.’”
So is he saying we’re NOT a nation of various religions? Would he prefer that Obama had said, “We are a nation of Christians and a handful of other people who are going to hëll when they die.”?
Personally I think the ones who should be complaining are the Wiccans for being left out.
PAD
• 
I don’t know how anyone can watch this coverage and come away thinking that there’s such a thing as the “liberal MSM.” Look how much negative coverage Obama has received after just four days in office.
By that logic, if I can find instances where Fox News criticized conservatives and/or Bush you would find it hard to believe that anyone could describe them as “conservative”? Because I could do that.
I think most of the criticism Obama has gotten so far from the MSM has been mild and/or more petulant than deep. Imagine if Bush’s nominee for treasury sec had failed to pay taxes and had a not very convincing explanation for it. Maybe they would have had the same lack of outrage, who can say? (For the record, I think it might be good to have a guy in charge who has first hand experience on how brutally complicated the code is.)
Also on Friday, CNN ran a story reporting that leaders of prominent feminist organizations were already disappointed that Obama hadn’t done more for women. One feminist leader declared that Obama wasn’t taking women seriously
yeah, there’s a shocker. have you already forgotten about Hillary? They haven’t. Obama singlehandedly knocked off the best chance to have a woman in the White House. Hillary Vs McCain would have probably been a closer race but I still think she would have won. They were mad about it then and they’re mad about it now.
Plus, there can be no circumstance where advocacy groups like most prominent feminist groups can express satisfaction with The Way Things Are. How does that benefit them? They get donations based on fear, not optimism. There are reasons for these groups to be happy but fund raising won’t be one of them. NARAL and others have been able to send out letters that basically beg for money on the grounds that Roe V Wade is on life support and could be overturned at any moment–hard to make that argument now.
I’m not criticizing them for this–it’s a fact of life that you can get more donations when people feel that they will do more good. Especially in this economic environment.
This is little stuff that just comes with the job. Now, I can think of some groups that have a perfectly legitimate reason to complain–for example, anyone who thought that Obama would reverse the Bush administration’s use of warrantless wiretaps. The ones who saw it as one of the 10 steps to fascism. Either they now have to admit they were just talking hyperbole or they have to see the people they supported as the new goose steppers. (Or option C, they develop amnesia). So THEY’VE got reason to gripe.
Chuck Todd’s argument is that they only let four reporters in for an event that they’d usually let everyone in on.
I don’t know how anyone can discuss what “usually” happens in such a highly unusual circumstance. When’s the last time the president had to re-take the oath of office?
Anyway, I don’t want to dwell on this any further. I think I’ve made my point.
Bill Myers: I don’t know how anyone can discuss what “usually” happens in such a highly unusual circumstance.
Lots of stuff that the President does is unusual circumstances, if you get specific enough with the circumstances. I think the main way they judge it is that this was something the media has obvious interest in, it was something the President clearly wanted public, and it had no particular security concerns. By those criteria, I’d say that it’s very uncommon for media access to be so restricted. Thus, the concern that this would be a precident.
In answer to your question, Calvin Coolidge was the last President to get a do-over on the oath after stumbling.
A friend of mine said that a group of pagans that he knows went to the inauguration and were mighty peeved when he said, “…and nonbelievers”. They felt lumped into that group because they weren’t members of the other religions.
I would have mentioned to them, if I had the opportunity, that the speech wasn’t about thanking all of the religions that make up America, but I think I would have been looked down upon for that, so I’m moving on.
One can live in a “christian” or “Jewish” nation and not participate in either religion and still receive the benefits of citizenship and practice whatever you want. This principle is not afforded in the Muslim countries or in traditonal
atheistic countries
well not so long ago a muslim country called iraq had a christian vice president… ooops
Bill Mulligan: “By that logic, if I can find instances where Fox News criticized conservatives and/or Bush you would find it hard to believe that anyone could describe them as “conservative”?”
No, but in fairness you’re portraying something as “my logic” when it’s anything but. Treating each and every negative story about Obama as an isolated instance is like saying, “No one died in that plane crash other than the 153 passengers who were killed.”
Obama has received his fair share of negative coverage from day one. Everything from flag pins to Rev. Jeremiah Wright to discussions about whether Obama had substance underneath his style. Eventually, Bill, you have to stop looking at the individual trees and acknowledge that yes, indeed, they do add up to a forest. Democrats and Republicans alike take their lumps in the media.
I’m waiting for a bumper sticker or State of the Union Address which states, “Yes, Wiccan!” 🙂