The New York Times addresses current issues in three ways: as expressions of guidance on the editorial page, as expressions of individual opinion on the op-ed page, and as worthy (or not) of news coverage or analysis in the rest of the paper. It has grappled with how to cover Israel, for instance. And for the last 30 years, it has struggled with how to cover gay people. Now the paper has moved in all three departments from following to leading, from first using the word "homosexual" in 1926 to (tardily) using the word "gay" to pioneering gay wedding announcements. What can we learn about the paper's process of leading, following or getting out of the way from its coverage of the women's suffrage movement—and of the relationship of this coverage to future successes of social movements? READ MORE

That's neat. 31 of the 39 Democratic representatives who didn't vote for the health care bill are in districts that had more McCain voters than Obama voters last year. Mmm hmm! Also, twelve of them are former Republicans of formerly Republican districts. (And to be noted: 1 of the 39 was Dennis Kucinich, who voted against the bill because it was too friendly to insurance companies.)