Well, to be honest, he's a religious dude. I imagine that's where the 'nonbeliever' term came from more than the idea of pandering to conservatives.

I was part of the parade.

It was cold

Bear in mind that the opening speech reflects the outlook to which he'll be approaching his first term. Extrapolating what I heard, to the policy he'll enact makes me go "Hmm..." and I'm going to watching to see where it goes. There were a few other phrases I heard, and I'm going to repeat that nothing made its way into his speech by chance - every single word and connotation was chosen with care.

www.hulu.com has a collection of all the inagural addresses going back a few presidents. (I think back to whitney not sure)

I was disappointing that the "prayers" were longer than the actual speech. However, the fact that the Whitehouse.gov website changed by 9:20 califorani time, was pretty impressive.

A radio station here in San Diego was playing JFK's inaugural speech over the intro to MGMT's "Kids" as I drove to work today, after a bit of commentary about Obama's words. Very upbeat and promising way to start the day.

It was one of those "ooh" moments, too, since Saturday I went to dinner with my dad and we talked about Obama and how Obama gives him back an optimism he felt was shattered when Bobby Kennedy ('the last hope') was killed. And then he said that the abovementioned song is his current theme song for Obama, since it's very upbeat and about growing and changing and etc. Smiled all over!

With regards to the agnostic/atheist/non-believer thing, I think it is merely because non-believers encompass agnostics, atheists and others who simply do not care/bother/affiliate themselves to a religion. After all, the terms atheistic and agnostic is fairly specific.

Like, OH EM GEE, Obama's all up in my Non-believing. I demand to be given an arbitrary title!

It's hard to overstate how amazing it is, that he's actually President.

I do know what you mean by the religious fervor. Michelle Obama came to speak on my campus and the atmosphere made me uncomfortable. Lots of chanting. Too cult-like for me, really.

Not going to argue the sematics. Too many derails and debates would ensue.

Suffice to say: There were some other instances of word choice in his speech, as well, where he went with the words that would, subconsciously, resonate better with the moral majority. Given that he's going to have a huge right-wing push against him at re-election (They've been planning for 2012 since November, Sarah Palin for even longer ), I can hardly blame him; what it does give a clue to is that I think we'll likely see liberal-esque choices from him, but tempered by moderation. Now that he's in the role, he wants to keep it, and he will be cautious with many decisions - the only issue is if caution (not, in itself, a bad thing) holds him back too much.

Frankly, I cannot help but admire the guy. He's coming into the role in a very rough time. Then again, I'm a dirty liberal and had no interest in seeing Hilary win, so my past vote/support for him is to be expected. Now that he's in the job, however, I'll exercise my constitutional rights to watch it all more avidly than TMZ.

On a semi-tangent, someone at work today brought up the notion of how completely entrenched we are in the entire pomp and circumstance of the ceremony - almost as if to hide the fact that the president is taking on this role entirely by the wish of the people (the president's position period, not the individual).

Rabid conspiracy and anarcy nonsense aside, it's actually a rather interesting thing to muse over - COULD America ever collectively decide to change its very system of governance? Constitutionally, sure. Just amend the sucker. I spent the rest of the work day pondering the amusing practicalities of our citizens refining our government process...and then, just as the day ended, I remembered the movie Idiocracy...

They better by the date I assigned, that moon laser isn't just going to wait forever, y'know?

America's government has changed drastically over time, without ever changing the constitution.

We just change the ways in which we read it.

We've amended the constitution 17 times already...not sure what you mean by not changing it.

Sorry, I mean not changing it order to make big changes to our government process.

Also, if you consider that 18 and 21 cancel each other, it's only 15 amendments. XD

Ok, you may think you are an Obama supporter, but apparently you haven't really listened to a thing he has said over the year(s).

Obama has stressed time and time again, that he wishes to lead with consensus, not by just some marginal majority. He chose those words to appeal to the right. Not because he has some re-election scheme on his first day in office (though I'm sure he does), but because he honestly (or so he says) wants to have a "big tent" government, where the people who are Conservative can feel moderately comfortable with him. He wishes to be the leader of the United States of America. Not the leader of the United Blue States of America.

If you are such a big Obama supporter, then why don't you listen to him and support his goals instead of going back to the divided America "you" kept complaining about?

I wonder how many people are going to be shocked to find out that Obama was serious about his plans for the country. And how many are going to actual listen to the words he actually says now that is isn't just the anti-Bush.

I thought Obama was very close to a "nothing to fear but fear itself" moment, when he mentioned goverment programs "working" or not.

He could have said something along the lines of , "It doesn't matter if a policy is Left or Right, the question is whether it works or not"

I would not be surprised to find Obama increasing the amount of statistics the government collects regarding its various programs, and reviewing them in some sort of new Office of National Statistics

I think it's awesome that he's going to try to work with everyone. I love that he's gotten political rivals on his staff and team. I think inclusive is way more productive than exclusive. I think that judging a program based on if it works is great. I totally think that it's possible to keep to the basic values of liberalism without completely snubbing conservatives. The only ones who'd get upset are the fanatics in both directions and who wants fanatics anyway? Sure, they're all dedicated and devoted, but they're also the folks who charter pirate ships in the Antarctic Oceans to start mini-wars with whaling ships and blow themselves (and everyone around them) up for religion.

Wow @ Daganev. Over-reaction much? I never stated that I was a big Obama supporter. I think he'll do a very fine job (granted, anyone in comparison to Bush will), but I, personally, am not a fan of the two-party system. I am nonpartisan, but I play along because working within the framework is far more effective than playing at being liberal-chic and voting for someone asinine like Nadar (many people I know have done that kind of stuff for years), which only siphons votes away from the major cadidate who will achieve policy I want.

...Oh, well look at that. I vote for the policy results, not the party, just like Obama will make policy for the results, not the party. What a remarkable coincidence. It seems you missed what my concern is, so I'll elaborate a bit more. Obama was the liberal ticket - it is a simple fact of politics that the party in power, for a large majority of the time, votes for their incumbent. This means that, in some (many?) cases, their own party is simply assumed (rightly so) to be supporting them, so they can make gestures, decisions and do work to benefit the other side, sometimes at the expense/neglect of their own. And, yes, it IS about sides. That's simply the way American politics work, and that's why I'm nonpartisan. I'm merely hoping Obama won't fall into that.

I'm pretty sure the pirates today are just doing it for the money

I'm just waiting for one of them to wear an eye-patch. Damn international pirates! (from somalia??)

What you wrote here, is not what you wrote up there.

Up there you said that he is pandering to the right wing so that he can win an election.
Up there you said you admire the guy, and supported him instead of Hillary.

However, here, you still write about it being teams, but Obama specifically ran on the campaign that is was bringing Change, and that teams don't matter anymore. (no blue states, no red states) You have the two party system to bounce ideas around, and so that you can have competing ideas. However, that doesn't mean that your party will always have the correct idea. And the point is, who comes up with the correct idea is no longer important. The only thing that matters is that the correct ideas are discovered and implemented. For being a "nonpartisan" you sure seem to care about "code words" directed towards the "other side" And when there is no "correct idea", then you search for the place where you can agree and compromise, and move forward from that point. (such as Obama's statements on compromise over Abortion)


edit:

http://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing_room/executive_orders/

Somebody needs to tell his website staff, that they are behind on the times.

I don't know about anyone else, but I think it's fantastic that he's already started doing what he's said he was going to. He's already suspended Gitmo and is currently drafting the official closing order, he's locked the salaries of his cabinet and aides, and he's signing a bill that will prevent any lobbyists who left lobbying to work on his campaign from going back to lobbying for as long as he's President. And that's just on his first full day and not including his calls to Middle Eastern Leaders.

I'd say he's on the right track to uphold his promises, which is absolutely awesome.