Barack Obama's books seemed to persuade many people to support him. Have you read them?
No. Does one ever read a politician's books? [...]
The death of Sen. Edward Kennedy prompted a flood of coverage about him and his career. In 1969, you said in an interview, "By 1972, Kennedy will be just another politician whom we have seen too much of, no doubt useful in the Senate but nothing more. By 1976, Camelot will not only be forgot but unrestorable, if for no other reason than that Arthur's heir will by then be – cruelest fate of all – unmistakably fat."
I should think that's rather well observed.
What is Ted Kennedy's real legacy?
It's nothing. [...]
Shouldn't this be a golden age for the Democrats? They finally control both houses of Congress and elected a president.
But they don't have a reason.
Some less ha-ha comments about Roman Polanski's rape victim:
During the time of the original incident, you were working in the industry, and you and Polanski had a common friend in theater critic and producer Kenneth Tynan. So what's your take on Polanski, this many years later?
I really don't give a fuck. Look, am I going to sit and weep every time a young hooker feels as though she's been taken advantage of?
I've certainly never heard that take on the story before.
First, I was in the middle of all that. Back then, we all were. Everybody knew everybody else. There was a totally different story at the time that doesn't resemble anything that we're now being told.
What do you mean?
The media can't get anything straight. Plus, there's usually an anti-Semitic and anti-fag thing going on with the press – lots of crazy things. The idea that this girl was in her communion dress, a little angel all in white, being raped by this awful Jew, Polacko – that's what people were calling him – well, the story is totally different now from what it was then.
Link via L.A. Observed.