New York Times:

Washington is a city that likes its traditions, and [Obama's social secretary] Ms. Rogers has raised a few eyebrows by trying to bend them. When former social secretaries gave a luncheon to welcome Ms. Rogers earlier this year, one participant said, she surprised them by suggesting the Obamas were planning a "non-religious Christmas" — hardly a surprising idea for an administration making a special effort to reach out to other faiths.

The lunch conversation inevitably turned to whether the White House would display its creche, customarily placed in a prominent spot in the East Room. Ms. Rogers, this participant said, replied that the Obamas did not intend to put the manger scene on display — a remark that drew an audible gasp from the tight-knit social secretary sisterhood. (A White House official confirmed that there had been internal discussions about making Christmas more inclusive and whether to display the creche.)

Yet in the end, tradition won out; the executive mansion is now decorated for the Christmas holiday, and the creche is in its usual East Room spot.

Such a move isn't "inclusive." Inclusive means bringing things in. (For example, Bush displayed a menorah, and celebrated Hanukkah.) Obama's attempted change, in contrast, is "exclusive", in the sense of rejecting or excluding certain elements; moving them out.

Given his extensive claims to Christian faith — which he played up to a much greater extent than his opponent — it seems more than a little odd to spend so much effort attempting to remove the most significant symbol of Christmas from his own residence.

Perhaps there's only room for one messiah in the White House? ;-)