As a Floridian for over 15 years, I cannot tolerate the cold.  I would  not 
go to the Inauguration even if I had tickets to the balls, etc.  I  would 
simply be too miserable even being out in that extreme cold for a few  minutes at a 
time.  I hope all of those people wear thermal under garments,  including 
Obama.  He's on the thin side and is going to be freezing.
In a message dated 1/18/2009 3:36:46 P.M. Eastern Standard Time,  
[log in to unmask] writes:

>  Peter Montgomery wrote:
> I find it puzzling that a procedure  which involves so many distinct
> activities,
> including a speech  of some length, would be held at a time of year
> when the elements  militate against the focus of said procedure.
> If the reason  lies with its being necessary as soon after the election
> as possible,  then the next  obvious question arises.

Until 1956 inanugurations  were held in March -- that date having been
set in the Constitution when it  was apt to take several months first to
collect the electoral votes, then  for the new president to move to
Washington. And of course the amendment  that changed it to January 20
was pre-TV, so it still wasn't a big deal.  (You might look up where the
ceremony was held at that time. I suspect  indoors but I don't know.) 

The change from March to January was  triggered by the fact that in 1933,
as the nation plunged deeper into a  banking crisis, the delay between
November and March became really  serious.


P.S. When have political ceremonies been all  that rational or  explicable

**************Inauguration '09:  Get complete coverage from the nation's 
capital. (