Prosecute the torture.

May 29, 2008

Donald Sutherland Speaks His Mind

I know he's a Ca-NAY-djen (from New Brunswick, doncha know) but he and Jane Fonda did make the beast with two backs during the filming of Klute, just so you know.

By the way, if you don't know what is meant by "beast with two backs" go read Othello, Act I, scene 1 line 126. If you still don't get it, go find a missionary to show you.

Well anyway, the original Benjamin Frankin Pierce chimes in on Senator Clinton:

It is incomprehensible to me that Mrs. Clinton can seriously be touting the notion, with the support of the punditocracy of CNN and Fox, that she is leading in the popular vote and should therefore be seriously considered as the most electable candidate in the November election. She's including those who voted for her in Florida and Michigan's name recognition ballot saying that to exclude them would be to disenfranchise them. What about the Democrats in Alaska, American Samoa, Colorado, Idaho, Kansas, Minnesota, New Mexico, North Dakota, Nebraska, Washington, Hawaii and Wyoming who did not cast ballots because they were playing by the pledged delegates playbook and voted by caucus. What about them? Certainly if the rules are going to be changed and judgment is based on the 'popular' vote those voters in the eleven caucus states and Samoa will be disenfranchised. What about them?

And what about us? What about the American people? Haven't we had enough of Mrs. Clinton's mad antics in her pursuit of the realization of venal personal ambition; her 'say anything, do anything, no matter what' effort to manipulate our all too willing media to gull this country's populace into believing that her wretched illegitimacy is indeed legitimate. How much mendacity do we have to suffer, how much brazenness do we have to swallow before someone, anyone, has the decency, the common sense, to relieve us of this terrible trifle, this pathetic madness?

YOU wanna argue with Jack Bauer's dad??

I don't.

7 comments:

Anonymous said...

John K. says: LOL LOL You are now citing Sutherland as a credible source to support your candidate? Go check "The Dirty Dozen" and see what else Oddball has to say. LMAO

Anonymous said...

Notice, everyone, how John K comments on Donald Sutherland but remains ABSOLUTELY SILENT about McClellan's book.

Typical.

Anonymous said...

John K. says: I got few comments about the McClellan book. But the appropriate blog has not been presented to comment. Blog about the book and I will be glad to set you left wing kooks straight. As is my never ending task. You cite "Oddball" as support. LOL That is so funny.

EdHeath said...

David Brooks and Gail Collins staged a mini debate in today’s NYTimes on the subject.
http://campaignstops.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/05/29/the-conversation/
Both raised pluses and minuses about the current system for both parties, and Brooks actually had the gall to say that one side was repulsive but right; the other romantic but wrong.

My point is that Hillary probably should have pulled out a while ago, but she was the presumptive front runner six months ago, and anyway stubbornness might well be a desirable quality in a president. She is taking her best shot at becoming president, and perhaps the democrats will be richer for it. I mean, is it just me or has Obama started to seem a bit petulant recently. It seems like he is tired of campaigning, that he wants more time with his family, that he just wants the thing to be over, with him in the White House already. Hillary’s narrative of experience gains traction there, accompanied by her narrative of winning the popular vote. On the other hand, we have had eight years of an insensitive president, do we want four more?

But these are the things the voters get to decide. Well, or got to decide, through an excruciating campaign. And that was just the primary.

Fillippelli the Cook said...

Sutherland is such a whiner. Doesn't he know that Florida is the most important state in the whole country??!! The voters in Florida have been DISENFRANCHISED - a word that, when you use it in context with the state of Florida, must be presented in all caps - so it doesn't matter about those in other states who played by their states' rules (which, again, are only for losers). Thousands of well-tanned Floridians are PISSED, I say. Nobody else MATTERS!

Mr. Sutherland, please return to your Hollywood mansion or European villa or where ever it is that liberal pinkos live, and leave this serious business of primaries to the serious-minded people who understand the importance of the most important state ever. [And please send me an autographed copy of "Buffy." You were most excellent in that flick.]

Bram Reichbaum said...

In the first paragraph he was dead on. In the second paragraph he was being kind of a troll.

You know what? Let's settle this on the convention floor. Hillary's close enough to continue making her case to the voting delegates if she thinks its best for the country. Let's just not be unreasonably hard-line when it comes to the ground rules. And let's stop hurling nonsense at each other. In fairness, the nonsense has ceased on both sides, except when this credentials issue comes up.

jaywillie said...

Donald Sutherland is a fantastic actor; so many good films...

My personal favorite is probably Robert Altman's M*A*S*H. The film is just unabashedly anti-war, which isn't surprising since Altman was never one to ameliorate his politics to appeal to the masses, though he frequently disguised them behind the subtle veneer of free-flowing narratives populated by a wide-range of disaparate characters.

My first encounter with Sutherland on film was probably his brief role in Animal House. He was great as the mysterious informant in JFK and I can't recommend him enough as Clark Clifford in one of John Frankenheimer's last films, Path to War