DRW50

Do you mean because Obama didn't push harder to appoint Garland? I thought there was nothing they could do because Republicans controlled the Senate. Do you mean because Republicans won the Senate in 2014? I do agree about weakness there - that woman who ran for Mitch McConnell's seat in Kentucky and was terrified to admit she voted for Obama was embarrassing. If you mean because people weren't aggressive enough about Trump during the campaign, I thought many were outspoken about him - I think the media bias and Hillary's flaws as a candidate were the biggest culprits. I agree with many of your points, but if we basically say that civility of no kind ever wins and you just have to get ugly all the time, then the Republicans are always going to have the upper hand on that front. That's another reason I'm wary about making this the centerpiece of the midterms, as seems to be happening - Democrats will never be as good at it as Republicans, and even if they were, Republicans will always have more support from the media and the public on these types of tactics.

I think that some elements were from their involvement (I know he said he toned down the sexual content for that reason) but the "men with balls" stuff and the hatred of women were there from pretty early on.

I think one of the problems is that many of the defenses I see (not on here, generally) of being uncivil is "Republicans do it too," and then pointing out times that Republicans behaved like lunatics in 2010. That was an ugly moment, a series of moments (and I agree that they weren't called out on it - if anything they were praised as some kind of spirit of America), which in my opinion helped lead to the shootings of Gabby Giffords and some of her staff. I don't want people on the left to duplicate that type of mentality. I don't think that's what Maxine Waters wants either, and I don't think most of the people who will want to confront public officials will act that way, but right now the framing often seems to be, "When Republicans did this, it was terrible...but there's nothing wrong with me doing what I want because Republicans did bad things." Over and over I feel like framing is what many on the left just get wrong, not just for the media, but for activists and causes in many areas. In one sense framing is meaningless, especially when it feels like the country is speeding through various levels of hell, but I think it's something that if considered properly would help harness a lot of people and a lot of power in ways that would help long-term.

I suppose what worries me is that isn't what this is about for a lot of people, and it's more about wanting to get into fights to put on social media. I feel like there are so many people who just use these causes for their own gains. I also worry about others who do mean well but are going to be baited and attacked by those on the right who are looking for a chance to make a viral moment. I just feel like this has so many ways to go wrong.

That actor looks familiar to me but I can't figure out who he is. He looks like a West Coast soap actor of that era - not a big one. I think it may be Kim's husband, Robert J. Urich. She married him in 1981. Here's what he looks like:

It's interesting how the people who object to the shaming/confronting strategy are being framed as deluded and cowardly, rather than some who feel it isn't the best strategic idea (as the conversation has now shifted to things like women claiming they were spit on, claiming their mothers were harassed, etc. instead of trade deals or corruption or immigration) or people who genuinely are worried what will happen if everyone on the left is encouraged to get into aggressive, physical confrontations (especially with the increasing prevalence of guns out there). It tells me again a lot of people have decided there is no faith in government or voting and the only solution is revolution (complete with certain fantasies that go along with that - I saw on that left wing site Splinter an article with a big photo of a limo on fire, which kind of says it all). If they feel that way, then they certainly have the power to make that happen. I just hope they are telling people of the dangers they might face if they decide to get violent (because that's where this is going to go, very quickly), as I think some may still see it as just some kind of fun "truth to power" moment to go viral or make themselves feel good for a day.

I think the part of the base that will be galvanized by this already was, so I feel like it just opens a can of worms without having the proper followthrough. Certainly we don't need ICE, there are better ways to handle immigration, but that isn't what will be talked about, because by and large Democrats don't handle framing well and the media would rather focus on asking any and every vulnerable Democrat in Congress about this issue as they squirm in response.

Very true. I also thought the end for Bonnie was just kind of sad and degrading. To see a show that Marland had made so progressive (in a way that worked for a socially conservative audience) become so retrograde was heartbreaking. I think that's one of the reasons I skipped so much of the last decade.

Yes, although to be fair to him I have seen little of his writing for Rita (what I have seen for Holly is...not good).

Diana was too much of a hybrid of poor little rich girl/sarcastic/hard-edged and bitchy/vulnerable/fun. It was too many things for a very regimented writer like Marland. It was just plain messy, which in this case was a great thing because of the combination of Kim and the way she shaped the role, but is something I think he would have balked at because many times it is not a great thing. I figure he would have had similar problems with a character like Marcy.

Not sure if you want to be spoiled, but . Here's an old interview with Backus.

Tucker was Steve's construction business partner, and he was dating Heather Dalton. I don't know if Marland wrote him out or not (although Iva eventually bought into Steve's business, or became manager there). Russ was a doctor who was obsessed with Betsy and was taking care of her or something, I think. Cal Randolph was opening a club (didn't Lisa take it over after Diana left Oakdale?) and also tied to the mob, and carried a torch for Maggie. I think they may have been involved in the past (I can't remember). Kent Bradford - wasn't he in a story with Kim and the psychologist she dated who was a psycho (played by Adam Drake from EON)? I can't remember. Many, many pages ago I posted an interview with Ernie where he talked about what a bad state ATWT was in behind the scenes when he was there. I think he also said one of the actors was a huge prima donna and this affected his material.

From what Pinter said I get the feeling Marland planned to write him out so early on (as he told him he planned to write him out very well in advance). I wonder if he ever tried with the character at all or just decided it wasn't worth it. Diana is a wonderful anti-heroine, as Carly was. There were attempts at similar roles for Meg, Julie, and Tess (although Tess was more of a plot device than anything else), but it never quite worked - Meg was too one-dimensional when she was written that way, and while I loved Julie, she never quite fit that role either, as she was entirely defined by the Snyders and cared too much what people thought about her. I figure it was probably done as a flashback reveal to help explain why she killed him. They left town for Frank's job. I think it was Marland.

A part of me feels like this strategy of how Democrats should verbally confront Trump people anywhere/everywhere they go and shame them/run them off, is sort of an admission that they know nothing is going to change in the midterms and they are warning people in advance to get vocal and steel themselves now. I hope that isn't the case, but they must wonder deep down, as I do, if the voters have just thrown in the towel, or worse, will continue openly supporting the insane and insanely corrupt GOP. We can try to change it - I'm just wondering what solutions people actually have beyond just basically saying it's awful and think of the children. That won't get anything done, as most in Washington don't care about the children and never have to begin with.

Kirk was best served by CLJ being so cute and energetic in his youth. Brian just doesn't do anything for me. Diana had a real spark, although she doesn't seem like a Marland character, so Kim was probably right to go when she did.

I agree with the idea, but I just wonder if any Democrat anywhere near a level of power would be able to accomplish those goals. I feel like a lot of the reaction to the debate doesn't go much further than "The world hates us...leave those children alone...this isn't America." And I certainly agree with all those (except maybe the latter, as America has been doing this for a long time), but I just wonder where it will go when it's time to make emotion into policy.

I was watching some old HBO junctions on Youtube a few days ago and one described Canadian Bacon, and I had the same reaction. Scary... Anyway, more "winning" from tariffs: https://www.cnbc.com/2018/06/25/harley-davidson-says-it-will-not-raise-prices-to-cover-eu-tariff-cost.html https://www.cnbc.com/2018/06/25/trade-war-europe-china-work-together-as-us-threatens-with-new-duties.html

Some in Canada are pushing to go after the Trump businesses personally. Canada was the wrong country to mess with. http://www.businessinsider.com/canada-france-trump-organization-tariffs-trade-response-2018-6?r=UK&IR=T

What do they want to replace ICE with?

The music on the show was often an overwrought mess in the early/mid '80s. As was a lot of the show, period. The Whit stuff is so OTT it's difficult to invest. I did like Jay though. I felt like he was wasted potential.

We stopped caring about due process when W was President - Trump is just more blunt about it.

I think it used to be on Oakdale Historian or a channel like that (not sure if that channel is still around), unless I'm thinking of another episode.

The Rick Thomas channel on Youtube has been putting up a lot of Watergate-era stuff. That can tend to blur together, but I thought this was interesting. At about 28 minutes starts an interview with then-Senator Daniel Inouye. I didn't know he was subjected to a racial slur during the Watergate hearings.

My main issues with Katie, beyond the amount of characters badly damaged for her sake, was that Terri Conn was a cold, limited actress who lacked chemistry with nearly all her romantic partners. She certainly didn't get ATWT canceled, and she isn't why I stopped watching the show, but I do think she was a drag on the show. Conn was lucky to have a lead role as long as she did. She was badly exposed once she got to OLTL.