Real problem or teapot tempest?

This story greeted me this New Year's Day morning and I just have to ask for opinions on this, regardless of perspective.
Let me put a framework on this first.
If we'd asked the late George Carlin to offer the invocation, it would have probably been bleeped often and sounded like an atheist's plea for the Christians to shut their pieholes, but it would have been inclusive of those who do not share the Christian faith and no one would not have asked him to sway from his bent. Or if they had, he wouldn't have listened.
Yet, there is an expectation - in some circles - for Rick Warren to "tone down" his expression of his faith by not naming the name of the One in whom he professes to have faith and whom he encourages others to call upon when he delivers the Inaugural invocation 19 days from now.
Sure, I think having Warren present is an attempt on President-elect Barack Obama's part to do what he said he would do election night - and that's try to be the president of those who did not vote for him. Millions of evangelicals did not vote for Obama, for a myriad of reasons. He should be given credit for acknowledging them. It sure beats the alternative - ignoring the millions who voted red instead of blue.
So all this said, is it fair for those who are not fond of Warren's expected presence on the dais on Jan. 20 to expect him to exclude Jesus Christ from his prayer? Should he be mindful of the fact that not everyone in this nation professes faith in Christ and offer some form of generic, all-inclusive prayer? Or, should he stay true to his faith and not waver one iota? Please opine!