Obama Sworn in Again

[3113]

Better safe than sorry, I guess.

WASHINGTON - After the flub heard around the world, President Barack Obama has taken the oath of office. Again. Chief Justice John Roberts delivered the oath to Obama on Wednesday night at the White House — a rare do-over. The surprise moment came in response to Tuesday's much-noticed stumble, when Roberts got the words of the oath a little off, which prompted Obama to do so, too.

Don't worry, the White House says: Obama has still been president since noon on Inauguration Day. Nevertheless, Obama and Roberts went through the drill again out of what White House counsel Greg Craig called "an abundance of caution." This time, the scene was the White House Map Room in front of a small group of reporters, not the Capitol platform before the whole watching world.

"We decided that because it was so much fun ...," Obama joked to reporters who followed press secretary Robert Gibbs into the room. No TV camera crews or news photographers were allowed in.

Roberts put on his black robe.

"Are you ready to take the oath?" he said.

"Yes, I am," Obama said. "And we're going to do it very slowly."

Roberts then led Obama through the oath without any missteps. The president said he did not have his Bible with him, but that the oath was binding anyway. The original, bungled version on Tuesday caught observers by surprise and then got replayed on cable news shows. It happened when Obama interrupted Roberts midway through the opening line, in which the president repeats his name and solemnly swears. Next in the oath is the phrase " ... that I will faithfully execute the office of president of the United States." But Roberts rearranged the order of the words, not saying "faithfully" until after "president of the United States." That appeared to throw Obama off. He stopped abruptly at the word "execute."

Recognizing something was off, Roberts then repeated the phrase, putting "faithfully" in the right place but without repeating "execute." But Obama then repeated Roberts' original, incorrect version: "... the office of president of the United States faithfully."

Craig, the White House lawyer, said in a statement Wednesday evening: "We believe the oath of office was administered effectively and that the president was sworn in appropriately yesterday. Yet the oath appears in the Constitution itself. And out of the abundance of caution, because there was one word out of sequence, Chief Justice John Roberts will administer the oath a second time."

The Constitution is clear about the exact wording of the oath and as a result, some constitutional experts have said that a do-over probably wasn't necessary but also couldn't hurt. Two other previous presidents have repeated the oath because of similar issues, Calvin Coolidge and Chester A. Arthur.

Article 2, Section 1, Clause 8 of the Constitution states: "Before he enter on the Execution of his Office, he shall take the following Oath or Affirmation:

"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."

 

[DesertPirate]

Until you do it right, you ain't da man!
Glad there is no way anyone can question it now.

 

[voluptuary_manque]

Gee, the one we took on entering Service was a lot longer and more impressive than that. What a cheesy little oath. Oh well, small oath, big office. I guess it all balances out.

 

[slyc_willie]

Gee, the one we took on entering Service was a lot longer and more impressive than that. What a cheesy little oath. Oh well, small oath, big office. I guess it all balances out.

Smaller roles in service require less room for interpretation.

 

[3113]

Gee, the one we took on entering Service was a lot longer and more impressive than that. What a cheesy little oath. Oh well, small oath, big office. I guess it all balances out.

Big oath in a small amount of words, actually--which is good writing. Multi-layered. I mean he has to preserve, protect and defend the constitution--that means he has to preserve, protect and defend 7 articles (with all their sections) and 27 amendments And that's in addition to executing that Office of President and all that entails.

Not so cheesy an oath there. Just succinctly worded

 

[slyc_willie]

Big oath in a small amount of words, actually--which is good writing. Multi-layered. I mean he has to preserve, protect and defend the constitution--that means he has to preserve, protect and defend 7 articles (with all their sections) and 27 amendments And that's in addition to executing that Office of President and all that entails.

Not so cheesy an oath there. Just succinctly worded

Indeed. A blanket oath like that for the Presidency, while leaving much to interpretation, also leaves much open to scrutiny and expectation. Ambiguity means an adherence to precedence.

 

[3113]

Indeed. A blanket oath like that for the Presidency, while leaving much to interpretation, also leaves much open to scrutiny and expectation. Ambiguity means an adherence to precedence.

And knowing your constitutional law and what the Office of the Presidency entails.

 

[slyc_willie]

And knowing your constitutional law and what the Office of the Presidency entails.

"To uphold the Constitution of the United States" . . . .

Of course, there is always room for amendment.

Just saying.

Obama might just be the one to make such a thing happen for the first time in decades.

Might.

If his supporters get away from the messiah complex and rally behind him as a democratic President.

 

[Pure]

good news.

had it not been done, i can just see amicus and the looney right bloggers going on for the next 4 years about the 'unconstitutional' obama administration.

 

[rgraham666]

They will, anyway. The only thing Obama can do to make them happy is to leave office, preferably feet first.

 

[cloudy]

If his supporters get away from the messiah complex and rally behind him as a democratic President.

God...just stop. Please. The only people who have ever used that phrase are the people trying to belittle those of use who support him.

Its ridiculous, and it's demeaning.

 

[sr71plt]

God...just stop. Please. The only people who have ever used that phrase are the people trying to belittle those of use who support him.

Its ridiculous, and it's demeaning.

Well, no. A whole lot of his supporters are lifting him to Messiah level--which is expecting too much. A large number of Obama supporters are quite unsophitisticated in expectations. You just gotta try a little objectivity here (not that you're really capable of that, of course).

 

[Guest]

"To uphold the Constitution of the United States" . . . .

Of course, there is always room for amendment.

Just saying.

Obama might just be the one to make such a thing happen for the first time in decades.

Might.

If his supporters get away from the messiah complex and rally behind him as a democratic President.

I can't believe you're still repeating this phrase.

It's very insulting.

Many of us have been followers of Obama since he spoke at the Democratic Convention. We listened. We studied. We educated ourselves on policy.

Yes, he is a charismatic leader. Yes, he is an amazing speaker.

But that does not mean we follow him blindly.

No, we don't expect all the ills of the world and the bullshit from the last eight years to be magically fixed overnight. Nor do we expect this to happen without a hell of a lot of hard work and sacrifice on all of our parts.

The only people still repeating the Messiah phrase are people who are against Obama and his supporters.

I'm tired of the naysayers saying, in essence, that I'm an idiot for feeling positive about this presidential choice.

I'm very surprised to hear this coming from you.

 

[sr71plt]

I can't believe you're still repeating this phrase.

It's very insulting.

Many of us have been followers of Obama since he spoke at the Democratic Convention. We listened. We studied. We educated ourselves on policy.

Yes, he is a charismatic leader. Yes, he is an amazing speaker.

But that does not mean we follow him blindly.

No, we don't expect all the ills of the world and the bullshit from the last eight years to be magically fixed overnight. Nor do we expect this to happen without a hell of a lot of hard work and sacrifice on all of our parts.

The only people still repeating the Messiah phrase are people who are against Obama and his supporters.

I'm tired of the naysayers saying, in essence, that I'm an idiot for feeling positive about this presidential choice.

I'm very surprised to hear this coming from you.

I think you miss the pretty-much-self-evident point. Obama's strength was made up with a whole lot of folks. Yes, the sophistocated were there--but the bulk was rounded out by people feeling empowered for the very first time (which was the margin of victory--brand new voters that Obama managed to touch and mobilize).

This also is Obama's danger zone. A large portion of them really do believe that all you need to do is change administrations and everything changes on a dime. And, yes, they are playing the Messiah card to the hilt. And yes they will be disillusioned when it doesn't happen "that" fast or to "that" degree. And, yes, this is exactly what makes born-again fundie Christians bite on any sparkley thing that wafts by and then get disillusionist and go looking for the next sparkley thing. And, no, this is in no way a criticism of Obama.

Sliyc wasn't, as far as I can see, criticizing those who were sophisticated in supporting him at all (which includes some--but not all--posting to this forum). He was just stating a truism--one that both Obama as his thinking supporters have to be very careful about.

When you see a dreamy thread here of Rosa sat/Martin talked/Obama did, you are moving into expecting too much of Obama. Sorry, but thems the facts.

It will be hard for him to do get as little done as Bush did--but it's unfair to expect him to turn history around on a dime. As far as Rosa Parks and MLK go, Obama has already made an equal mark just by winning the presidency. Give him some slack if you really are a supporter.

 

[off2bed]

God...just stop. Please. The only people who have ever used that phrase are the people trying to belittle those of use who support him.

Its ridiculous, and it's demeaning.

Read this story and STFU. http://www.cnsnews.com/public/content/article.aspx?RsrcID=42227 And he's not the only one that feels that way.

 

[DesertPirate]

They will, anyway. The only thing Obama can do to make them happy is to leave office, preferably feet first.

Oh hell no!
The last thing we need is another martyr who didn't actually do anything!

 

[DesertPirate]

Read this story and STFU. http://www.cnsnews.com/public/content/article.aspx?RsrcID=42227 And he's not the only one that feels that way.

How true, it's almost cult like.

 

[Selena_Kitt]

Sliyc wasn't, as far as I can see, criticizing those who were sophisticated in supporting him at all (which includes some--but not all--posting to this forum). He was just stating a truism--one that both Obama as his thinking supporters have to be very careful about.

Yeah, agreed.

Honestly, it's the fanatics in any crowd that worry me. And Obama does have them. Bush did, too.

What's concerning is that the higher the pedestal goes, the harder the fall. That's when things really do get dangerous.

 

[midwestyankee]

Read this story and STFU. http://www.cnsnews.com/public/content/article.aspx?RsrcID=42227 And he's not the only one that feels that way.

This story, while it's probably emblematic of how many people do feel, is something of a sucker punch. Note that the reporter never explains how it is that so many different people chose to compare Obama with a Biblical figure. My guess is that that's because it was the reporter's idea to ask the question, "Which Biblical figure do you think Obama most closely resembles?" So the crafty reporter gets a bunch of cool celebrities to answer the Biblical question, among others no doubt, and then the headline writer (who is a copy editor and not the story's author) elects to make bold with the Biblical comparisons.

I won't argue that many people who voted for Obama see him as a transformational figure and many of them probably hold hopes that are unreasonably high. But I think it's also worth giving them the benefit of the doubt. They waited a long, long time to see a man of color take that oath. Once the high of the election and inauguration wears off I figure most of them will settle back into a mode of patience, though hopeful patience it may be.

And really, does anyone truly want to hang a generalization on the words of Don King?

 

[Belegon]

Read this story and STFU. http://www.cnsnews.com/public/content/article.aspx?RsrcID=42227 And he's not the only one that feels that way.

Any person with even a moderate experience interviewing can read these responses and tell that the question was leading. It's even told to you that this was so...

They spoke about how Obama had changed their lives and which Biblical character they think he most resembles.

....also, note Denzel Washington's response...

Denzel Washington, however, was reluctant to draw a parallel between Obama and a Biblical character.

“What Biblical character?” Washington said. “As Mr. Obama has said, it’s not about him. It’s about us. It’s about what we do collectively.”

...restating the question at the beginning of his answer.

 

[Belegon]

By the way... always check your sources. Just having the word "News" in your name doesn't mean you are unbiased. The bold is my emphasis.

The Cybercast News Service was launched on June 16, 1998 as a news source for individuals, news organizations and broadcasters who put a higher premium on balance than spin and seek news that’s ignored or under-reported as a result of media bias by omission.

Study after study by the Media Research Center, the parent organization of CNSNews.com, clearly demonstrate a liberal bias in many news outlets – bias by commission and bias by omission – that results in a frequent double-standard in editorial decisions on what constitutes "news."

In response to these shortcomings, MRC Chairman L. Brent Bozell III founded CNSNews.com in an effort to provide an alternative news source that would cover stories that are subject to the bias of omission and report on other news subject to bias by commission.

The failure to reveal their question is consistent with the double-speak in their mission statement. This is not an unbiased media outlet, anymore than The Huffington Post is.

 

[Selena_Kitt]

....also, note Denzel Washington's response...

King was the only one who actually answered the question, you'll note. The rest actually understood what the reporter was doing and circumvented it.

Check out Jay-Z's response:

“Obama changed my life in the same way he has changed your life,” hip-hop artist Jay-Z told CNSNews.com.

And Smokey Robinson's:

“He has changed my life just like he has changed your life,” agreed Robinson. “If you are an American citizen, he has changed all of our lives. America has changed our lives.

The reporter was attempting to be divisive - how many people who weren't of color did he/she ask? The two above responses move toward the inclusive.

But then look at the comments. Judas? The Antichrist? *sigh* The fanaticism continues, on both sides, folks.

 

[3113]

If his supporters get away from the messiah complex and rally behind him as a democratic President.

Well, no. A whole lot of his supporters are lifting him to Messiah level--which is expecting too much. A large number of Obama supporters are quite unsophitisticated in expectations. You just gotta try a little objectivity here (not that you're really capable of that, of course).

I'm capable of it. And I'll say to you...well, no. See, sr71pit, at this point the fact that his supporters view him as a messiah and expect too much of him is taken as a given. It's become a meme that really *does* undermine those supporters and casts them as stupid sheep. Yet in a recent poll "61 percent of the 1,100 Americans surveyed this month said they think the United States will be better off five years from now. But, most Americans said they do not expect to see real progress for at least two years." (here) That doesn't sound like they're viewing him as a Messiah who is going to perform miracles.

Are there people who are blindly following him as a Messiah? Sure. And there were people blindly following George Bush as one. Just about every president has his blind followers and worshipers. And yes, Obama is charismatic, he is a riveting speaker, he does inspire...and people *like* him. And trust him as a person. And this means that we are all bound to be disappointed somewhere along the line. Approval ratings will go down--they usually do, as there is always that honeymoon period. But there's a difference between having faith and optimism in a leader, thinking he will be a good president, and seeing someone as a Messiah who is magically going to save us all.

So, yes. It is insulting to keep repeating this meme as if it is a fact. It is an assumption. Where are YOUR polls? How many people have said, "He's the Messiah and he's going to work miracles" rather than, "I am optimistic things will be better in four years"? Given how bad things are now, the second statement is not outrageous in it's optimism. My point being: trusting and liking him as a leader, even being optimistic is not the same as believing he is a messiah and doing anything he says blindly. Popularity doesn't always equate to blindness on the part of followers--at least not all or even a majority of followers. What you and Slyc are saying, in my somewhat objective opinion (and how objective is yours?) is a meme that is aimed at discrediting Obama's popularity as not being genuine.

If it isn't just a meme, if there are facts to support it, then I'd like to see them. Repeating it, assuming it because people cheer and wave flags, doesn't make it true.

 

[Guest]

It is insulting. But gosh, thanks so much to those of you who are looking out for those of us who support Obama. Don't know how we'd manage without your guidance and help.

During the past eight years because of my dissent with Bush's actions I've been called unpatriotic, a non-Christian, a bleeding-heart (though I was also heartless for my stance on abortion rights) and also part of the liberal elite (because I tended to agree that science and higher ed was sorta important).

So now people who support Obama are idiots, seeing him only through starry-eyes, and won't we all be so shocked when the bottom falls out?

Well, fuck that.

Check a few conservative blogs. This is all they are talking about.

Wake up. Grow up. People are more intelligent than you give them credit for.

But for now, I guess you can just toss another label onto the mix.

 

[TheeGoatPig]

Check a few conservative blogs.

I'd really rather not