Interesting to consider the treatment afforded to the great orator Obama when he a/Firstly fluffed his inauguration oath and then b/Had to take it again, but this time without a Bible. The BBC coverage plays it up with gentle humour but can you imagine the treatment Bush would have got had he made such a gaffe? I wonder, for example, what the left-wing BBC chorus of “comedians” will have to say about this? In the age of Obama, the media whores comply with the narrative.

Bookmark the permalink.

35 Responses to ALL THE DIFFERENCE

  1. Martin says:

    Someone on this blog (one of the lefties) actually sneered at Fox suggesting that there might be trouble over the oath.


  2. Grant says:

    Great material for Rory Bremner.


  3. glj says:

    When is a gaffe not a gaffe?

    If this had been Bush the BBC would have it on an endless loop with the sound of a banjo being plucked in the background.


  4. NotaSheep says:

    So all of you conspiracy theory fans who swore that Barack Obama would never take the oath The Bible, because he was a secret Muslim, what say you now?

    I only ask because when Barrack Obama re-took the oath in private yesterday he did not swear on a Bible because apparently one was not available – how convenient?

    The BBC are reporting this as a light-hearted “oops” type story. Two things strike me; first that if this had been a Republican then “embarrassing gaffe” and “chaotic start to a Presidency” would have been phrases much in evidence in the BBC’s coverage and second that this re-taking of the oath without a Bible is going to set the conspiracy theory websites afire.
    If I were Barack Obama I would organise a third oath taking ceremony and re-take the oath and swear on a Bible, because otherwise the rumours will spread.


  5. mikewineliberal says:

    martin – that leftie was me, although I object to the description. But clearly chris wallace wasn’t being quite as mad as I thought.

    not a sheep though has filled the void splendidly!

    The gaffe was roberts’s. obama followed suit. the bbc news at ten focused on obama’s frosty reception when biden sought to make light of the matter.


  6. Gus Haynes says:

    Sky’s Foreign Affairs editor Tim Marshall said: “He is concerned conspiracy rumours that he purposefully didn’t take the oath properly because of his nationality and his religion will start circulating.

    “So, due to an abundance of caution, he just wants to nail that and get it right.”

    He added: “The problem is, the second time he did it they couldn’t find a bible in the Map Room, which is not technically necessary but the conspiracy theorists will make something of that.”


  7. Gus Haynes says:

    Roberts made the mistake, they did it again as a caution. And the conspiracy rumours … oh please don’t even start. Was September 11th also a conspiracy? And the moon landing?


  8. Gus Haynes says:

    And yeah, the BBC news bit about Biden’s joke was priceless – Obama wished the ground would open up!


  9. Mailman says:

    Yeah, this is a non-story…like the non-story that is his birth certificate (remembering that McCain wasnt born in America either).



  10. Steve T says:

    BBC editing Obama speech to say what the BBC wanted. If true this needs raising to the highest profile


  11. will says:

    Yeah, this is a non-story

    It certainly is – but it would not be (for the BCC) if it happened to Bush. As is the different treatment re

    US Treasury Secretary: Tim Geithner has apologised to senators for failing to pay $34,000 in tax dating back to 2001.

    Newsnight were singing Geithner’s praises last night, without one of those characteristic BBC asides, which would have found it essential to make us aware of his tax problems had he belonged to the previous administration.


  12. glj says:

    Steve T | 22.01.09 – 12:48 pm | #

    That is absolutely bloody outrageous! Splicing together parts of two different sentences in order to create a sentence which suits the BBC narrative – how on earth do they get away with this?


  13. glj says:

    hmm, that should have been two paragraphs or three sentences.


  14. Richard Lancaster says:

    What relevence does the bible aspect have here David, even adding italics to make it look more sinister. I can’t see why you’d include this other than to stoke conspiracy theories. The issue is the ‘gaffe’.


  15. Martin says:

    mikewineliberal: Fox simply reported that ‘some’ might seek attention by claiming that Obama didn’t give the oath correctly.

    Bill O’Reilly said clearly that was nonsense, but Obama to his credit re did it anyway.

    As I have pointed out before I want Obama to do well as a strong America is good for the world. What I object to is liberals like you that are unwilling to allow any criticism of the sainted one yet happily jumped on anything Bush said that got mangled.


  16. Anonymous says:

    So much made of George Bush’s gaffes all the while untouchable Obama makes yet another one and it’s brushed away and all is well! Pfft!


  17. Gus Haynes says:

    I think that beliefs and outlooks, political and otherwise, can be summarised as follows. The ‘left’ often think that the world is complicated and that there is not a simple explanation for a lot of things, whereas ‘the ríght’ often believe that the world is pretty simply really; there’s good and bad, and explanations for behaviour/events/actions are unnecessary as everything broadly falls in the ‘good’ or ‘bad’ camp. Of course, there are many on the left who subscribe to the simple theory too, and conversely many of the right who believe in complicated scenarios that cannot be explained as either good or bad. However, on the whole, I believe these descriptions explain many of our beliefs, political affiliations, and in turn, the way we view the world in front of us.

    An example is terrorism; the right see it is bad, pure and simple. No further explanation needed. The left also see it as bad, but do not think that the description of ‘bad’ alone is an adequate reason for explaining it. They look for reasons. For cause and effect. The left point out what fuels terrorism, what creates it, and what long terms causes have resulted in terrorist acts. The right often dismiss this as a justification, or an excuse, of terrorism. But it’s not that, its a way to understand it, other than just subscribing to the simple theory of ‘terrorism happens cos of evil people’. Yes those people may be evil, but there is motive for their actions. And that motive is worth exploring. To pigeon hole everything into ‘good’ and ‘bad’ often neglects the grey in between, and in often fails to attempt to understand why things happen. That is why that many on the right respond to terrorism by looking forwards; planning a response, a reaction, a strike back. Whereas the left look forward, but also look backwards and wonder, ‘why did this happen?’. The right are not interested in the ‘why’. They have already made up their minds on the ‘why’.


  18. Gus Haynes says:

    The ‘left’ and ‘right’ are no perfect terms, but they can be used to broadly explain the way that most people think – people often choose, consciously or not, to be left, or to be right. And whilst they are not perfect terms, they do help to explain the way we think about things. There are ‘left’ causes (environment, rights) and ‘right’ causes (security, traditonal values, for example) and often because someone feels a certain way about an issue, they then notice (or are told) that as a result of their belief, they are ‘left wing’ or ‘right wing’. Or Republican or Democrat, Labour or Conservative. They then stop to think about the other issues as much, as they now see that their belief is often shared by others who all take the same stance on a load of different issues (the left often support environmentalism, and free health care too – they are not linked at all, but cos one person follows one issue, they feel they somehow must then feel the same way on the second issue as it’s what ‘their kind (left/right) believe in. We are all sheep. We rarely think things through ourselves. We find a view, and often stick with it. Often we don’t even find a view, its given to us (by our parents, our friends, the media) and we never consider why we think taht way at all. Then we define our own ideology based on those who share broadly similar views. Then it all becomes about ‘us’ and ‘them’ . It becomes about winning, and being right. When the actual issue is forgotten, and driven by our belief and our newly acquired ideology. Logic, and rational judgement, often goes out the window.


  19. David Preiser (USA) says:

    Chief Justice Roberts screwed the line up. I finally got around to looking at a video clip, and he was obviously nervous as hell. He was doing the proverbial “deer in the headlights”, and got a word out of order.

    President Obamessiah had clearly practiced the oath beforehand, and said his line as he would have done normally. This threw Roberts off even more, and caused him to screw up the next bit.

    I feel sorry for both of them. Roberts must feel awful, and any new President deserves to have an inauguration free of controversy. I hope everybody quits making a big deal out of this as an “Obama gaffe” because the other side is already starting to grumble about a white racist Bush appointee trying to sabotage the black President.

    I guess Roberts won’t be doing any weddings any time soon, either.


  20. dave fordwych says:

    BBC tv Breakfast had some leftie comedian on yesterday morning.He did a very good impression of Bush and also had Obama pretty well nailed.
    But when he was asked if he would hammer Obama as unmercifully as he has done Bush,he said no the guy had to be given a chance.

    Fair enough up to a point,but neither of the presenters had the wit to ask the obvious question.”If the Tories win the next UK election ,would he afford David Cameron the same latitude.”


  21. fewqwer says:

    Gus Haynes

    I find Dr John Ray’s analysis of the subject more consistent with the evidence than your simplistic speculation.


  22. Hugh Oxford says:

    The idea that you can’t find a Bible in the White House is absurd.

    Anyway, one to watch viz. the BBC is the terms they use when referring to Barry. At the moment, they are using “President Obama”, the more respectful title. That may change in time, but they almost always used to refer to “George Bush”.


  23. Gus Haynes says:

    Well Dr Ray has his theory, I have mine. I never claimed it was definitive nor perfect. Don’t call it simplisitic, it may be a bit generalist, but that is the nature of such a theory as I’m sure you are aware.

    And, not to pick a fight, but I would rather hear your opinions about it, good or bad, but articulated criticisms, rather than just dismissing it as simplistic.


  24. betyangelo says:

    “We are all sheep. We rarely think things through ourselves. We find a view, and often stick with it. Often we don’t even find a view, its given to us (by our parents, our friends, the media) and we never consider why we think taht way at all.”

    Actually, Gus Haynes, you are being prosaic. In the above sentences, your own experience becomes the paradigm.

    May I suggest a book, it is called, “On Combat”, by Lt. Col. Dave Grossman. In the book he observes three types of people – Sheep, Wolves, and Sheep Dogs.

    Sheep do not trust wolves or sheep dogs either – even though the sheep dog is there to protect the sheep.

    The right, as you describe it as a “black and white” mentality, would be the sheep dog, attqacking the wolves. The left would be the sheep – seduced by their own ambiguity. The wolves are the media, politicians, those preying on the sheep, ready to invalidate the sheep dogs to the sheep.

    YOu are an admitted sheep. What are you doing in a den of sheep dogs?


  25. mikewineliberal says:

    foxes and hedgehogs, shurely.


  26. betyangelo says:

    When Americans were British we spelled it “surely”. Has something changed?


  27. mikewineliberal says:

    It’s an affectation private eye use; based on bill deedes’ verbal tick – “shome mishtake, shurely.”


  28. Grant says:

    mikewine 10:20

    Now you are educating us about Private Eye !

    Funny, but, in my heart , I rather like you.

    But, please find out how PE is funded and report back !


  29. Millie Tant says:

    David Preiser:
    Chief Justice Roberts screwed the line up. …
    President Obamessiah had clearly practiced the oath beforehand, and said his line as he would have done normally. This threw Roberts off even more, and caused him to screw up the next bit.

    David Preiser (USA) | 22.01.09 – 5:21 pm | #

    Obama started repeating the first sentence / part of sentence before Roberts had finished speaking it.

    This must have thrown Roberts off and caused him to mix up the next bit, putting “faithfully” at the end instead of at the beginning of that part.

    That then threw Obama off, so he hesitated, then repeated that bit but with the “faithfully” at the beginning…I think, going by memory.


  30. fewqwer says:

    Gus Haynes

    I italicised the word ‘simplistic’ to hint at the irony in the fact that you presented a simplistic hypothesis in which you characterised ‘the right’ as favouring simplistic hypotheses 🙂

    In my humble experience, such ironies are common among leftists.

    As this is well off-topic for this thread (and this blog), I will resist the urge to go on about it, especially since you show signs of the leftist tendency to write long content-free screeds 🙂


  31. betyangelo says:

    Oh. Sometimes my colonial upbringing puts me at a disadvantage 🙂


  32. mikewineliberal says:

    Grant – I love you too.

    What’s PE? sorry if being thick


  33. Anonymous says:

    Grant | 22.01.09 – 10:31 pm

    But, please find out how PE is funded and report back !

    The eye actually makes an enormous profit and has done in almost every one of the last 25 years.

    It has a circulation of somewhere close to 120,000.


  34. Susan Franklin says:

    I’m not an Obama worshipper at all, but it was quite clear watching the oath-taking live, that Obama knew what he had to say, the Chief Justice got it wrong, Obama was waiting for him to get it right so that he could repeat it correctly. I don’t like watching BBC, so don’t know how they reported it after the event. Sky all morning Thursday had main headline saying Obama messed up the oath, then suddenly changed it to the chief justice messed up the oath – maybe they had a lot of complaints.

    This was a typical example of how the media blatantly lie – they were all there, hundreds of them. They heard and saw exactly what happened. If they lie blatantly about something millions saw live, tells you they lie about everything and anything they want to lie about, and can’t be trusted.


  35. Tom says:

    Susan Franklin | 23.01.09 – 11:09 am

    Why do you think Sky were deliberately lying, rather than simply making an honest mistake?

    Now, if it had been the BBC…..:)