DRW50

Ah. The ones I'd read about would affect everyone. They must have changed.

I think a lot of them likely don't actually know that there are any changes on the way to their benefits or plans. Obamacare, possibly, but I'd imagine a lot of people just don't get that there will likely also be crippling changes to Medicare and Social Security. When that happens I wouldn't be surprised if there is more of a backlash against Trump and the Republicans in Congress, although Trump will just lash out, most likely.

Doesn't work. Donna and Joan Collins look good in that shot. JVA actually somehow looks better than Michele Lee.

Very classy tribute. I still wish Matt, Dolly, Sam, and maybe some kids for Sam could return and take over Butler's. Dolly and Matt just for visits, of course, but Sam and the kids in regular roles. I know it won't happen - I doubt anyone at the show aside from Chris Chittell even remembers Matt or Dolly - but I can wish. Maybe it's best left to the past though, as I don't think I could think Matt being roughed up by Ross Barton. Frederick was such an underrated actor - he always played Matt with such softness, such a kind, sarcastic smile, yet with a tough core underneath. He was probably my favorite character of that era. I just wish more of it was available.

It's a harrowing story. It's also one that shocked me as I hadn't really been spoiled about it. Nancy Addison gives a superb performance and it's a shame she didn't win an Emmy for it.

Can't wait to see that. It will be nice to see a bit more of Terry as Jack. Someone is sending me a June 1989 episode soon, I hope, but I don't know if it will be one that was already uploaded. I'm sure you'll be able to tell me (hopefully...).

Speaking of Lee Phillip Bell, a channel has put up some interviews she did with various celebs. Here's one. Thank you. This is awesome. What a great treat.

Other than Iola and then Bubba's ass, I had a hard time with a lot of the syndicated episodes... (I did like the episode where Mama was alone at the house)

It depends on which versions of Vint and Naomi you're talking about. The syndicated version were too stupid to do anything beyond dress themselves.

The funny thing is I actually used an episode of that to try to explain what a disaster Trump would be if elected - the episode where Mama was elected mayor. Needless to say, it didn't exactly move the polls...

I don't think he would have worked as VP, but I wish there had been some way he and Hillary could have effectively worked together. It just isn't likely though. I think looking back the biggest missed opportunity was just not offering another vision. The media would have ignored it for Trump and scandal anyway, but I still wish there had been more. Like the VP debate, when they had Tim Kaine focus only on Trump. Kaine wasn't the most natural speaker or personality but there was a lot about him that could have connected if it hadn't had to be all about Trump.

I think that's also true. I think many of these types, like that idiot Jill Stein, are also probably somewhat fine with Trump winning, deep down, because they may feel they won't be affected and they think the world will be purified and their time to shine will come. I do think something in Bernie Sanders (not so much his supporters and campaign people) connected, maybe not with the average voter, but in a way that the working class can't connect to the establishment of the party. I'm sorry none of that was ever properly harnessed. He did try, and I think he genuinely wanted Hillary to win, but the damage was done from the ugly primary.

I agree about Cruz. I'm not sure if I suggested he would have won - I didn't mean to. Trump was the ultimate card because so many loathed him yet he was a fresh voice to many. So you may be right about her beating the others. I tend to think the media and the general mood of the country would have gone in the favor of media darling Marco or one of the other puppets if they'd stuck around. Cruz and Jeb Bush are the two I'd say were most beatable. I think Hillary ran a much better campaign than she'll get credit for. She should have won. I just wonder now if she had way too much baggage to ever truly have a chance.

Thanks. I missed the name. I'm glad you enjoyed them. It was a nice surprise to find those Helen videos.

I think that Hillary did as well as she did in part because Trump was SO terrible and SUCH a figure of hell. If she'd gone against any other Republican running beyond Ted Cruz, I think she would have lost, possibly resoundingly. I don't think she ran the worst campaign ever, by any means, and I do think James Comey and the media kneecapped her repeatedly, but I do think that there were some voters who simply could not support her for reasons that weren't about Obama. I think what hurt her the most was that she felt so inauthentic on issues that turned out to decide the election - trade. There's nothing she could do about that - no amount of telling people that she was now against TPP or she was going to fight for workers was going to resonate, because of 25 years of singing a different song. Of course Trump is a con artist and nothing involving his policies is going to help workers, of course he has a history of cheap labor and not even paying the bills. But you can say that and say that all you want and it doesn't matter to a lot of the people. I was happy when Hillary had those clever soundbites about Chinese steel, yet I underestimated just how many voters simply do not care. It's an unknown to them. He's an unknown. They knew Hillary, and many of them despised her and what she represented. There's something inherently rotten in the Democratic Party, something similar to what's going on in the UK with the Labour Party, in that voters no longer have any idea what Democrats stand for. Democrats say the "right things," but often with no real conviction. One of the reasons Obama was an extraordinary candidate is because he did have conviction and fire and integrity - people talk about how much Democrats lost with him in charge, but sometimes I wonder how much more they would have lost without him. There's just so little of that with the party as a whole, especially the higher echelons - you have so many people who are out of touch, who may mean well but have no idea what they're doing, what world they're in, have no ability to grasp populism in a way that isn't false or empty. Bernie Sanders inspired that in many, but he wasn't even a Democrat, and his followers (even more than him) were out of touch and often openly resentful and hostile toward black voters who didn't somehow get into line. If he, and more importantly some of his awful followers, had actually tried to build a real coalition, we might be in a very different place right now. Democrats are lucky compared to Labour because the Tories blurred the lines on social issues. Republicans will not do that - they will keep pushing, and keep delving into silly areas that will possibly alienate even conservative voters. This means that no matter how much Republicans keep trying to suppress the vote and keep passing laws that limit anything Democrats do get across (as keeps happening in North Carolina), there will always be a high level of opposition. Democrats are also lucky that Republicans are often open bigots and racists, more and more and more every year, because that means even with voter suppression, a large chunk of the populace will show up to support Democrats. This isn't enough to help in most downticket races, but it does in statewide races - as I think it would have this year, even with suppression, with a clearer message and a better campaign and candidate. One of the things that I'm most wary of with Democrats is those who have the naive belief that we're always on a path to getting better, and people just have to understand this reality. Many people don't and won't understand that. I'm not saying cater to these views, because Democrats have tried to do that too and often failed - but you can't just dismiss them. It's difficult, because views are so hardened now, even the most compassionate or skilled Democratic candidate isn't going to convince a voter to agree or to compromise, but there has to be a middle ground between pandering and essentially writing off huge portions of voters and entire states, entire sections of the country, as impossible to reach, and saying it won't matter because demographics means other parts of the country will "catch up." Republicans have shown just how efficient they are at that rendering that impossible. There's something inherently decent in many Democrats that they believe everything will move toward equality, fairness, and tolerance (although some struggle to adjust to the reality of this not involving white liberals patting POC on the head), but this also means many of them simply can't and won't understand the huge portions of the country that don't feel this way. Many can't be reached, but the sliver that can be reached - not through pandering and lurching to the right, but in empathy and honest talk - are worth the effort. Instead we either have sneering and elitism, or the tedious wanking of "What's the Matter With Kansas?" that yearns for a past that is never coming back. Republicans are generally ruthless and vile and have a killer instinct, and most Democrats in power in many recent decades rarely seem to have the same instincts. They just seem dumbfounded. Democrats seem to be showing more spine now because Trump is just that wretched, but it needs to not just be petulance, but planned action up and down the country, from legislatures and councils on. I'm wary of just how many Democrats are only focused on Trump and not on everything else in the party that empowered him. The more I see people say that Pence is better, the more I'm reminded of how easy it will be for Republicans to move on once Trump is gone. Without big changes, then, as unlikely as it is anytime soon, if the Republicans ever did thread the needle on social issues or on being such open bigots and racists, Democrats would be rendered all but extinct, because those are the main reasons to vote for Democrats now. You aren't voting for them - you're voting against Republicans. And this year that wasn't enough. I'm not sure if will be enough in 4 years (if we aren't nuked out by then) either.

I wouldn't be too surprised if those people disappear. They did their job, they're there to be used up and cast aside.

The Jessica/Marshall stuff bothered me because I felt like the story existed to degrade Jessica, as that was how Sheffer saw women. I don't know what the plans were for the rape storyline, or if it was supposed to even be seen as rape. I felt sorry for Lamman Rucker, although at least he found better work elsewhere.

Thanks. I was looking for AMC videos and found that channel via some Season Hubley interview - just a reminder of how many soap names were also on Broadway, and what NYC has lost with the death of daytime soaps. It's weird seeing Lisa Brown in that context - although she's good (she plays it more serious than I had expected though). The guy annoys me a bit. This was around the time JvD was likely an extra on Ryan's Hope. He wouldn't have made a bad Pat recast - I wonder if they regretted losing him. If any of you want to see more from Lee Philip Bell's talk show, there are a few clips on that channel.

Is Daniel Davis in this as well?

Lisa Brown 42nd Street medley. Jerry ver Dorn, looking very handsome aside from an eyebrow issue, in Are You Now Or Have You Ever Been?

Macdonald Carey interview from 1989.

Susan Hubley cable access interview from, I guess, the '80s, with a host who seems to know absolutely nothing.

What a terrible line. Marg Helgenberger getting through it shows what a star she already was.