by Frank James
The available recording of President Obama being administered the oath a second time by Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts isn't quite up to the quality we're used to for such important presidential events. It was obviously taken with an inexpensive hand-held digital recorder.
But since the audio, along with the official White House photo, is all we have, we and posterity will just have to make do.
A quality video of the moment should have been made, this being the YouTube age and all. Plus, Obama is the most videogenic president ever.
But the media pool report doesn't indicate the presence of any video cameras in the White House Map Room.
White House officials obviously didn't want two competing video versions of the oath-taking contesting in the public's mind, fueling speculation as to whether Obama was really president during the more than 24 hours between the two oaths.
Also, most Americans weren't hung up on the botched oath. They're worried about bigger things. So the minimalist approach was deemed enough to silence critics who questioned Obama's legitimacy over the fumbled swearing in.
Here's a combination of the pool reports by Wes Allison of the St. Petersburg Times:
At the swearing in, per (Phil) Burton (a White House spokesman):
Justice Roberts with a staff member, Robert Gibbs, David Axelrod, Greg
Craig, a WH Photographer and POTUS
Also four reporters: st pete, bloomberg, ap and reuters.
Some of you have asked and no, michelle obama was not there.
When we walked into Map Room, Obama was on the couch, and Roberts was in
a chair to his left.
For the swearing in, Obama and Roberts stood across room from where they had sat, with us and staff in loose semicircle.
Obama on the right, Roberts on left.
At 7:35 pm, Roberts administered the oath of office again to Obama in the Map Room.
Robert Gibbs said the White House Counsel, Greg Craig, believes the oath was fine Tuesday, but one word was out of sequence so they did this out of a "an abundance of caution."
"We decided it was so much fun..." Obama joked while sitting on a couch.
Obama stood and walked over to make small talk with pool as Roberts donned his black robe.
"Are you ready to take the oath?" Roberts asked. "I am, and we're going to do it very slowly," obama replied.
Oath took 25 seconds.
After a flawless recitation, roberts smiled and said, "Congratulations, again."
Obama said, "Thank you, sir."
Smattering of applause.
"All right." Obama said. "The bad news for the pool is there's 12 more balls."
Comments
Barry is not the most videogenic president ever. That honor would surely go to Reagan or JFK.
Posted by: Joe | January 22, 2009 9:41 AM
I also think that the media should have been allowed to tape the first use of a bathroom in the White House by the Obama family. Grow up media. This whole mess is ridiculous anyway. It just shows the state of partisan politics ruining our country. Medias search for "the conflict" only emboldens them. If you don't think 24 hours of coverage of the inauguration wasn't enough....you are greatly mistaken.
Posted by: bill r. | January 22, 2009 9:49 AM
Re-doing it for a sound recording, sure, no problem.
But the swearing in on Tues was legitimate. Nowhere does it say it can't be mangled, mumbled or stumbled. There was nothing else on Obama's mind but that one oath.
Posted by: Alan Braun | January 22, 2009 10:17 AM
Let's let President Obama get on with running the country and stop the nit picking. We had an extraordinary day of celebration and now let's get on with it.
Posted by: Muriel Finkel | January 22, 2009 10:34 AM
Perhaps the President was more at ease this swearing in around since he didn't have a bible on which to place his hand.
Posted by: Elmer Gantry | January 22, 2009 11:10 AM
Let's go ahead and peg the quibble-o-meter. In addition to no requirement to use a book in the swearing in, the oath of office also doesn't include the new POTUSs siting his name after "I..." or "so help me God" at the end.
Yawn.
Posted by: Doug Zook | January 22, 2009 11:33 AM
Since it's pretty clear that this second oath was legally unnecessary, giving it short shrift was surely appropriate.
Posted by: ZBicyclist | January 22, 2009 11:52 AM
OK now maybe he will open the books and cooperate with the FEC on the documented violations of campaign finance laws..you remember...accepting donations from foreign nationals, accepting donations from foreign countries, accepting donations in excess of the $2,300 per person limit and accepting donations from fictitiuos individuals...all the boring illegal stuff. So, Obama cheated the system to win, and you know how us Americans hate cheaters and elitists who abuse the system. So, if he cheated to win, that makes his Presidency illegitimate. Hey media...get ready for the photo op...Obama behind bars! And we really must know what Michelle will wear to visit him in prison!
Posted by: Romad | January 22, 2009 12:24 PM
Joe said:
"Barry is not the most videogenic president ever. That honor would surely go to Reagan or JFK."
Oh come on...Obama is built like a fashion model...tall, lanky, high cheekbones, great smile. JFK and Reagan are not even close!! They're both pasty Irishmen (I'm a pasty Irishman too, so this isn't an ethnic slight).
But, to be fair, it's not right to say that "Obama is the most videogenic president ever". It's not fair to all of the presidents that served prior to the advent of video.
For example, I'm looking at a new $20 bill right now, and Andrew Jackson sure looks a hell of a lot like Hugh Grant. :-)
Posted by: BGS | January 22, 2009 12:42 PM
I have to agree with those who said the second oath was unnecessary. Only substantial compliance with the oath was necessary, and that happened on Tuesday regardless of whether a word or two got jumbled. His words conveyed the necessary import of the oath (and he didn’t have his fingers crossed).
.
On the other hand, one can never be too careful. Obama has already faced frivolous lawsuits challenging his eligibility to serve as President based on claims he was not a natural born citizen. That being the case, how hard is it to believe that someone might have filed another suit, based on the jumbled public oath, claiming he failed that qualification for taking office?
Posted by: John W. | January 22, 2009 3:11 PM
I don't understand what's wrong with them dudes. Over the many times I've taken that oath, I've never once messed up!
Posted by: JON WINDY | January 22, 2009 6:27 PM
Did the second swear-in add another odd Roberts precedent?
And what about non bis in idem ("double jeopardy")?
See http://notionscapital.wordpress.com/2009/01/22/oath-oopsy/
Posted by: Mike Licht | January 23, 2009 1:39 AM