James noted yesterday how coverage of Bush's inauguration has focused on the cost and the protests. Unfortunately for our depressed press, this constant negative coverage failed to inspire the American people to rise up and take back the country from the majority of folks who voted for Bush.

Understandably, the press is in a foul mood today. I liken it to me having to cover the Minnesota Vikings' Super Bowl Championship parade (Ha! As if that'll ever happen.) And, to make matters worse, there are all these bloggers and amateur media critics out there pointing out how slanted their coverage really is. What's a depressed, but wary, member of the liberal mainstream media to do? Well, I think they try to get their digs in at the President in ways most people won't notice, like how on November 3rd, a photo of Bush on CNN.com was titled "asshole.jpg". Or how, today, on Inauguration Day, captions to photos all tell the same story on photo after photo:

President Bush was sworn in for a second term on Thursday and pledged to work to heal a country divided by the Iraq war. Bush, who begins his second term with the lowest approval rating of any returning president except Richard Nixon

Ladies and gentlemen, that's the story for the day and nothing else. It's not about a celebration of American democracy or the inauguation of a man that most American voters chose to lead us for the next four years. Nope, today is about ripping on the President.

There's no good reason for that sentence to be included with so many photos from today. Did pictures from Clinton's Presidential Library opening include a line or two about his tawdry affair with Monica Lewinsky? If they did, I couldn't find any. In fact, all I found were rapturous descriptions of the Golden Age of Clinton.

I'm so far beyond wanting to see positive coverage of Bush, but for just one day would it kill the press to be fair and balanced?