links for 2008-05-05
Tweet
-
Two of the five superdelegates aligned with Clinton said they would reconsider their support if rival Barack Obama maintained his lead in elected delegates and the popular vote after the last contests on June 3.
-
Cylons, hell yeah
2 Responses to “links for 2008-05-05”
GOP Rep. Spencer Bachus Facing House Ethics Probe For Insider Trading
Jennifer Aniston Reportedly Pregnant With Twins
PHOTOS: Tamara Ecclestone At The Langham Hotel
Red Front? “Center For American Freedom” Logo Echoes Communist Style
Romney Calls For Defunding Planned Parenthood, Wife Was A Donor
GOP Fundraising Email Asks Supporters To “Knock Out” Obama
Romney Comes Up Limp In Nevada
Obama Opens Lead On Romney In New Poll
Latest Entries
Why Do Liberals Support Drone Strikes?
Weekly Standard Rolls Out The Iraq Argument For Iran
Equal Polarization, My Ass
Some Crazy Stuff That Happened In World War II
Maryland Republican Campaign Funds Used To Defend Voter Suppression
The Obama Jobs Record In One Graph
Martin O’Malley All In For Marriage Equality
Newt Gingrich, Filled With More Excrement Than Your Average Politician
New Year, Powerline Still Stupid
Thanks Again
Meta
Blogroll
Disclaimer
The views on this site are mine and mine alone, and do not reflect the views of my employer, Media Matters for America

August nails it once again. I tip my hat, sir.
How odd, and stupid, and really funny, to ask Dawkins if he’d like to live in a society run on Darwinian principles. Several years ago I heard him say, clearly and voluntarily, that such a society would be awful. It’s probably not the only time he’s said it. Was Berlinski that ignorant? Not hard to believe. Or did he think he was cleverly maneuvring Dawkins into an unpopular answer. Not too hard to believe, since that’s a pretty stupid idea.
In other news, the Slate piece was really informative. It’s a funny thing: we all knew that Obama did not at all have a grip on the Black vote last year, and there was plenty of coverage of it. Then suddenly the votes were in his pocket (BTW, thanks, guys! You may save us all yet) and the change doesn’t seem to have been newsworthy.
I hadn’t thought about the “not qualified to be President” gambit and its effects. Gee, ya think some people might take that sort of personally and be easily offended by it? (Though I’m not sure why women should be insensitive to that sort of thing, either.) But in fact, it hadn’t occurred to me that way — just that it was a nasty approach and a pro-Republican one — and it doesn’t seem to have got much press. And after all, if it didn’t occur to me, then you can’t expect the Clintons’ professional experts to have thought of it! Is that compaign going to be written up as “Fear and Loathing” or as “Dumb and Dumber”?