The word choice of the whole piece became an issue for me. Yes, there is evidence of the writer's style coming through and his word choice helps paint the picture of what the inauguration looked like. However, what throws me off the most is his use of the word jammed. He used the same adverb to describe Obama's first and second inauguration.
In the beginning of the piece he describes Obama's second inauguration as, "smaller and less ebullient than the 1.8 million people," then he uses 'jammed' once again to describe Obama's first inauguration. This goes against the title of the article which is called, "Inaugural crowd is smaller than four years ago, but no less hopeful" yet uses the same verb to describe both scenarios. This can leave the reader with some confusion regarding the significant difference in the size of the crowd between the first and second inaugurations for Obama.
On a different note the photo that was used is wonderful. I find this photo to be the best part of the whole article. A lot of people say that a picture is worth a thousand words and I believe this particular photo is a great example. You can see the hope in these people's eyes. The colors and the clarity of the photo is wonderful too.