Vee

Compared to what, another stellar year of GH?

I honestly never bought that friendship so I had no problem with Mulcahey dismantling it. But whatever, it's here. Ric and Ava would be a B or C pairing at best because that is what all pairings with Ric have been for decades. But it would beat many of her other flirtations lol.

Rick Hearst and Maura have chemistry with virtually everyone they've ever worked with, and Maura has been paired with a few real blocks of wood on this show. If they don't get Ric and Ava in the sack they're crazy. They've both fucked crazier for less. What's wild is I remember how that started. Very, very early on Rick and Tamara also had serious chemistry. I don't mind Ric being here because he is always weird as hell and fun to watch. But he is a slimeball. You just have to know who to pair him with. I am a little amazed Elizabeth is still giving him the time of day, lol.

My tortured retcon of the retcon there was always that Mitch Laurence had somehow engineered the false memory. Mitch was obsessed in his later years with identifying with Victor Lord and his empire; he took his house, his wife and was obsessed with taking everything he had. You will recall that during Malone II he even had a psychotic break where he briefly believed he was Victor and Jessica was Viki. (There were some really strange scenes at Victor's secret mansion in the woods where he forced Viki to dance with him while speaking to her as Victor, and she had to play along.) Given that obsession on his part I can see Mitch's skullduggery somehow creating the scenario where Jessica develops an alter and history of abuse, just like the Viki/Victor saga. It's ridiculous, but so was Tess and Jessica being molested. Were the show on today, I'd just handwave it away in a few lines: Jessica's DID was all just a false memory engineered by Mitch Laurence's schemes which she has undone with years of therapy, done. (But the trauma has left her still a different person.)

Very young, like pre-elementary IIRC. It's so disgusting to think about. I still don't accept that it happened.

Here's a serious question: If they had pivoted for real, and made the show about J.R. vs. Pam (as originally planned by David Jacobs going back to the miniseries) after Bobby died and leaned harder into it as opposed to whatever other mess they introduced that season, would it have made a positive change for the show or would it have simply cut the show's lifeline by a few seasons? I always figured the inertia of the popularity of Hagman, Duffy, etc. are all that kept it going in the last few years. To me, from what I've seen, Dallas never really evolved and that is what doomed it creatively. OTOH it ran the same amount of seasons as KL, so what do I know.

They interviewed a whole of 10 people. The pragmatic likelihood, from what I've heard, is that she goes up maybe 2-3 points nationally but starts opening up bigger leads in swing states. That's what the Harris campaign is looking for.

And now, some garbage:

From Karl Rove!

Very pleased for both this and The Gates, as any soap fan should be.

A sorrowful Luntz goes on the record on the worst TV show possible:

Fox copes: LOL:

Harris' campaign drops the entire debate as an ad:

Trump retreated to his safe place this morning:

I could see Sarah potentially doing one for AMC and her friends, though her career still isn't at a place of needing it. The rest of the cast, sure. Susan doesn't need to do it but I am sure she is #1. And yes, this would be ideal for GL or ATWT. I'd still prefer AMC be back serialized but this is not a bad play.

Oh my. The Lifetime setup also already allows for them to plumb the depths of soap stars who already work there, lol. I can't see this getting SMG like the planned Pine Valley primetime project I was very skeptical about (though who knows, has Sarah done Lifetime?) but I would be surprised if they didn't get just about anyone they want, starting with Susan.

Sure, but I've seen moderators do next to nothing for over a decade. I think they did good work and will likely be fielding death threats over it.

I think it's also important to credit media people when they do well. I think David Muir and Linsey Davis were very good last night as moderators. And I think most of the analysis on the major networks and the major papers refreshingly did not equivocate: They were very clear on who won and why. I don't lose sight of what Beltway media is as a larger organism, but I don't think each journalist or commentator is created equal or unequal. MSNBC is a for-profit network which deals with its own issues and mandates, but a lot of their on-air people (like Joy Reid, like Symone Sanders-Townsend, like Maddow, O'Donnell and more) still do not want Trump to win. We can say the same for other people at CNN, NBC, ABC, etc. You never let your guard down in critiquing media, but you allow for a changing situation and nuanced individuals. The other key is this: Corporate media worships power and hates a loser. They saw power last night and then they saw a loser, and power is what they gravitated to.

LOL:

It's not gonna stick for anyone who just doesn't want to vote for her. And I'm sorry, but there is no one coming out of last night in media claiming Harris failed, including the Times and Fox News. It was a rout. Jeremy Peters recycling 'undecideds' is all they have left. We can know the media puts the thumb on the scale and still admit that they have ceded to that reality from last night.