Over the past week, during the Denver convention, the New York Times has tucked some relevant but less visible "color" articles in the first section which I only got to see when I had time to sit down and read through five days worth of the print edition. For example, this was tucked into the front page last Monday:
"Obama has received overwhelming support from black voters, many
of whom believe he will help bridge the nation’s racial divide. But
even as they cheer him on, some black scholars, bloggers and others who
closely follow the race worry that Mr. Obama’s historic achievements
might make it harder to rally support for policies intended to combat
racial discrimination, racial inequities and urban poverty.
"They
fear that growing numbers of white voters and policy makers will decide
that eradicating racial discrimination and ensuring equal opportunity
have largely been done."
Only fiction has a beginning, middle, and end. However, what has to end is the myth (rampant on both sides of the "racial divide") that blacks can't make it on their own. In that sense, a man like Obama who is no more black than white, no more white than black, and way more capable, intelligent, and educated than most of us, is both a hope and a warning. The warning is that we'd better grow up and realize that the divisiveness we've gotten so used to indulging in will bury our prospects as a nation -- economically, socially, and as members of a larger international community.
___
Then there was a nice sidebar about Caroline Kennedy's part in searching for a running mate. (The online version of the article differs slightly from the original in the print edition.) In the report, she said she couldn't give out details of the process but she could talk about the way in which it was done.
"She said Mr. Obama cast a wide net. 'His goals and values were
really clear from the way he approached it. He wanted somebody who was
an independent thinker.'
"They presented the information to Mr.
Obama in a handful of private sessions, Ms. Kennedy said, and she
watched Mr. Obama work his way to selecting Senator Joseph R. Biden Jr. She said the search showed her another side of Mr. Obama.
"'I’ve campaigned with him and seen him in large settings,' Ms. Kennedy
said, 'but to see the way he asked questions, listened, brought people
together, with his leadership style and the kind of judgments he was
making, really made me think he was even better than I thought he was.'"
___
Finally, a fascinating piece about the frequency of the use of certain words -- freedom(s), healthcare, terrorism/terrorist(s) and a dozen or so more -- in the 2008 convention as distinct from the 2004 convention. This article/graphic doesn't reappear in any part of the New York Times' online edition, only in the 8/29 print edition.
In 2004, speakers talked about our "freedom(s)" more than three times as much as in 2008 while "change" has gone up from a rating of 11 to a rating of 84 in 2008. Is freedom less important to us?
"Terrorism/terrorist(s)" were used three times as often in 2004 as this year. "Healthcare" has gone down by about 20% in 2008. So has "courage." "Strong" and "strength" have been cut in half since '04.
"Speakers have hammered home Barack Obama's 'change' theme,using the word about ten times as often as they did in 2004. Also, unlike 2004, when the Kerry campaign sought to avoid direct attacks on the president at the convention, the speakers have regularly been mentioning John McCain by name. Speakers in 2004 practiced 'the art of the implicit slam,' a veteran Democratic speechwriter said then...
"Also on the upswing: more mentions of the economy, Iran, and Iraq.
"Words less frequently used: freedom, Sept. 11, and terrorism."
