This is the type of reporting you get when the journalist is a bystander to a computer rather than to people and their history. This awkwardly written but nevertheless thorough New York Times article should have captured the jubilation many felt about Obama rather than the bitterness some felt about Bush (whose "repudiation" occurs in the second sentence) when the opponent was John McCain, mentioned later in the report. Tomorrow's children will think Obama defeated Bush. The New York Times reporter, seemingly aware that he is writing for history, as this is our newspaper of record, could have focused on the racial unity symbolized by Obama rather than the partisan politics that few will remember when we reflect on this moment. Also, I have nothing against the use of Obama's middle name, but note that the Times is the only national outlet this morning to have emphasized that in the lead. This otherwise comprehensive overview of the election of the person who will become our first African-American president comes with a racial theme that ordinarily would be out of place, save on this historic occasion. But if race is important, then the reporter should not have omitted the eloquent references to that in McCain's concession speech, which also will go down as just as historic. Beyond race, as of this morning, this was one of the most quoted sentences from McCain's speech: "I wish Godspeed to the man who was my former opponent and will be my president." That never made it into this factual but editorialized report, and were it written in the true Obama spirit, it would have been more jubilant and objective.