Khan

It looks like Michael Bennet is dropping out, too, which is good, in terms of narrowing the field of candidates. Of course, I can't help but wonder if he stayed in this long, because his voters kept confusing him with the guy who directed "A Chorus Line" and "Dreamgirls." Not just Bernie Sanders. It seems like Elizabeth Warren is the ONLY candidate who keeps getting pinned down by how-are-you-gonna-pay-for-it questions, like she's the only snake oil salesman in the group.

Apparently, a tape where Mike Bloomberg is heard defending stop-and-frisk is making the rounds on social media. I'm not surprised either, @DramatistDreamer. Like you said, it was bound to happen. But, I thought Bloomberg's defense of the procedure (which, granted, he has since apologized for) was common knowledge, so where is Twitter's sudden outrage coming from?

I'm sorry, but Tina never looked that cheap.

It's a shame that it never occurred to P&G to build TEXAS around Beverly Penberthy and Pat Matthews, rather than around Beverlee McKinsey and Iris (who, IMO, was more effective on AW). For one thing, they wouldn't have needed to alter Pat's personality the way they did Iris' in order to make her the new show's central heroine.

Precisely. I've said it before, and I'll say it again: the Republicans are in power, not because they're so smart, but because the Democrats are so gullible. I figured that out when the "pure" ones from within the Democratic Party drove Al Franken out of the Senate, thereby costing us an important ally in the pushback against the Trump administration. But, on the other hand... I'm not sure anymore whether Ukraine matters all that much to potential voters, @rlj, but your comments above articulate Joe Biden's no-win situation in regards to Hunter and Hunter's connection to Burisma. If Biden addresses the issue at all, then he's just giving more oxygen to all the (debunked) conspiracies and conspiracy theories. But, if he doesn't, then he's seen as weak for not defending himself AND his son against accusations of corruption. Again, a no-win situation. I'll admit I was worried that the Senate would convince Hunter and/or Joe Biden to testify during the impeachment hearings, because I believed no good would come from it. Joe, in particular, has a tendency to shoot himself in the proverbial foot. I was worried the GOP would exploit that weakness, using his own words against him, and killing whatever chance he still has of winning the nomination. In the end, I guess, it really doesn't matter: by bringing it up at all, the GOP has made Ukraine an issue for Joe Biden, regardless of its' validity. My advice to all Democratic and Independent voters? Whether or not Biden addresses the matter, realize it's precisely that kind of propaganda that has brought us to this moment. Learn from our mistakes of four years ago. Look past what is clearly another smear tactic on the part of the GOP, and vote for Biden (should he land the nomination). The very fate of this nation rests on our ability NOT to make the same, stupid mistakes twice.

Exactly. When I complained on FB that Mike Bloomberg was wasting money on a "vanity campaign" that should go toward boosting another, more viable, Democratic candidate, a friend of a friend and former high school classmate of mine made an excellent point that ultimately made me rethink Bloomberg's value to the race. (I'm so easily persuadable). He wrote: [His friend] thinks Bloomberg is trying to get enough Super Tuesday delegates so that if we go into the convention without a single candidate having enough delegates to win, he can throw his delegates to whichever establishment candidate [...] is in the lead so they can get the nomination. I'm with my friend/former high school classmate. It isn't a bad theory. Nor is THIS theory from his identical twin brother, who chimed in with this later that day: I think [Bloomberg] is running just so he can more easily spend his money where he wants to in attacking Trump. As a candidate, he can spend his own money however he likes. There are still limits for individual giving, so he couldn’t just give a blank check to another campaign. Now, he could form a Super PAC, but then he wouldn’t get the earned media opportunities he does as a candidate. He has committed to paying his staff through the general election to work for whomever gets the nomination. I have to think he is sincere in his desire to make [Donald] Trump a one-term president. Also consider that a lot of his ads are attacking Trump. This early, you would normally be focused on winning primaries, but his ads seem more general election focused to me. Whether or not Bloomberg gets the nomination, I have to believe he (and his money) can be a valuable asset toward beating Trump in the election. To suggest we can do this without Bloomberg's kind of money -- as if all we need are a few, good, well-organized bake sales or something -- is foolish. If FDR or JFK were running today for president, the Berners and other far-left progressives would eat them for lunch. Heck, even Abe Lincoln would've been toast on Twitter. That's the "magic" of social media in the 21st century, I guess, lol. On the other hand, if the Berners had been around in the 1930's, they wouldn't get very far with their "REVOLUTION NOW!" jive, because the media of the day would have dismissed them as the fringe group they truly are. They wouldn't pose anywhere near the kind of threat to the Democratic Party that they do today. You know, at some point, we're all going to have to sit down and have a real conversation about what to do about the use of the internet and social media in this country.

As I see it, only a billionaire like Mike Bloomberg can take on Donald Trump and conceivably win. Not that he would be GUARANTEED to win, but I think he'd stand a much better chance of doing so than even Joe Biden. I can't say this often enough: when it comes to politics or anything else in this country, the only way to fight money is WITH money. (To put it another way: "Outwit, Outlast, OUTSPEND.") All those catchy messages and finely tuned agendas don't mean squat if you don't have the financial means to put them into the voters' consciousness. Even Pete Buttigieg understands that! Now, there are those who insist that all Bloomberg's doing is buying the nomination. To them, I say: 1. I think the rules stopped applying the day the DNC decided to allow Bernie Sanders, who has never identified himself as a Democrat, to run within their party. 2. WHO. CARES. We HAVE to get rid of Trump. Like James Carville said, this is our moral imperative. The fate of the world rests on the Democrats beating him and the rest of the GOP this November. If that means allowing Mike Bloomberg to parachute his way in like GL's Alan-Michael Spaulding at the Bauer BBQ, so be it.

THE DOCTORS seemed to suffer from the same combination of bad stories and even worse production values that all struggling soaps suffer from in their final days. But, thank God they had a strong cast. The actors might've been TD's only saving grace in its' later years.

Correct. EON's HW, Henry Slesar, had to alter the course of his "Children of the Earth" story, which introduced Eliot Dorn, turning him from a Jim Jones-like cult leader to a more gigolo-type character, because of the Jonestown tragedy happened right around the same time. I think so, too. IIRC, GF said they had plans to age Laura and have her do more than ask Lesley to plant some flowers on the patio.

Yup. So he can keep telling everyone about the revolution. Like the grimy old man who stands at the subway station and warns everyone of the Second Coming. Three other good points, courtesy of Carville: [Buttigieg] has to demonstrate over the course of a campaign that he can excite and motivate arguably the most important constituents in the Democratic Party: African Americans. These voters are a hell of a lot more important than a bunch of 25-year-olds shouting everyone down on Twitter. 1. Yes, African-Americans (and African-American women, in particular) have become the very backbone of the Democratic Party. The other candidates wouldn't even address it at the New Hampshire debate until Tom Steyer did. 2. Yes, how we vote is way more important than "a bunch of 25-year-olds shouting everyone down on Twitter." And if you don't believe it now, believe it if/when their guy becomes the nominee and loses the election, because African-Americans wouldn't come out strong for him. 3. Yes, that (appealing to African-Americans) is the one blindspot Pete Buttigieg will have to overcome if he wants to defeat Trump and take the WH. As I've said in the past, I don't believe Buttigieg is flagrantly racist. But, he's a limousine liberal. He doesn't know how to put himself inside our shoes and view this country the way we do. Well, no one is as bad as Bernie Sanders (or Donald Trump). The one thing I remember most about Mike Bloomberg from my time in NYC was the implementation of stop-and-frisk, as well as the outrage and grief it stirred up among many communities. Of course, Bloomberg has since apologized for signing off on the policy. Nevertheless, things like that can leave a bad taste in voters' mouths. I also remember people accusing Bloomberg of creating a "nanny state" with the reduction or elimination of many sugary beverages, and the demand for fast-food and other restaurants to begin printing the number of calories in each dish for consumers. (There was also some brouhaha over the passage of some ordinance that outlawed smoking outside public buildings? I didn't pay close enough attention, so I might have that wrong). Even today, that type of legislation seems a bit...intrusive. But, I get where Bloomberg was coming from. Obesity, and the diseases that stem from it, isn't just an epidemic. It's a public health crisis that continues to put enormous strains on our hospitals and healthcare industries, among other places; and it needs to be treated as such.

Carville makes a good point: even if Bernie Sanders were to win the presidency, he'd never be able to help the Democrats reclaim the Senate. Which means, with Mitch McConnell still there as Senate Majority Leader, we'd still be dead in the water. In most of the ads that have been running here (in OKC), Bloomberg talks often about being able to get the Democrats and the Republicans to work together. I like the guy, I really do. Under different circumstances, I'd pick him without question. But, even if HE manages to make it all the way to the WH, he's gonna learn the same, hard lesson we've all had to learn: "compromise" is NOT in the GOP's vocabulary.

I don't think Bernie Sanders knows how to do anything BUT scream about a revolution he believes to be imminent. He's an idealist, but he's also an egoist, and he's terribly lazy, too.

It is exhausting. But, does that make the gloom-and-doom sentiments any less true? At the moment, there is a great divide within the Democratic Party; with the moderates (or centrists) pitched on one side of the line, and the progressives on the other; and if the GOP hasn't already figured out how to exploit the friction for their benefit, they will. I'm scared that there is not a single Democratic candidate out there who can bridge the divide between the centrists and progressives -- that, in fact, the centrists might be forced to accept a polarizing candidate such as Bernie Sanders, in order to keep the progressives (and the Berners, in particular) from screwing us over like they did four years ago, even at the risk of alienating other voters, such as POC -- and that that will cost us the November election. The focus SHOULD be on defeating Donald Trump and the GOP. Period. No candidate will be able to implement much (or any) of his or her agenda for the country, because they'll be too busy cleaning up the messes that the Trump administration will have left behind. Yet, I think too many voters on the left are too comfortable right now in their personal situations to get that. The economy's still holding up, and we're not in another war (yet). Ergo, they have a childish mentality -- "Either I get the candidate that I want, or I'm staying home (or voting for Trump)!" -- that is poisoning everything and ultimately making it so damn easy for Trump to swoop in and snatch yet another victory from those who are losing their minds (and everything else) over the direction of this country; and believe me, when THAT happens, the country as we know it will be FINISHED. Now, I definitely agree with you there, @JaneAusten. It is very unfortunate that Elizabeth Warren keeps getting roped into explaining how she'll pay for everything, while others pitch their pie-in-the-sky agendas without so much as a raised eyebrow from the media. They certainly never question how Republicans plan to pay for anything, which, in turn, allows the GOP in Congress to pass budgets that slash needed programs in this country to ribbons.

Mama Khan believes God has anointed Donald Trump -- "because (YT says) he's getting rid of all the pedophiles and non-believers" -- and you know, as much as I still loathe the man, I'm starting to think my mother might be right. Of course, she also believes that Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama will be arrested "any minute now" for running some sort of vampiric pedophile cult. So, I'm still taking it all with a grain of salt.

So, it would seem RetroTV is in the thick of THE DOCTORS' declining years, when the show was clearly desperate.

It's gonna take a miracle (or a tragedy) to keep another Trump victory from happening. For someone who embodies humankind's worst attributes and impulses, the s.o.b. stays winning over his enemies, both real and imagined.

You mean Far Winds? Yes. That's David Canary. In fact, I'm not sure, but that might have been his first soap role after being on "Bonanza" for several years.

Good point(s) about Gary Ewing and Ted Shackelford. I think Karen Allen was busy raising her and Kale Browne's son, so, yeah, they probably would've needed to recast Annie. I, myself, would have tried to land a "soap name" -- an actor from one of the other, defunct primetime soaps (DALLAS, DYNASTY, FALCON CREST, etc.) -- for that role, as I feel casting just ANY actress wouldn't have felt right.

That actually sounds pretty good. It's too bad they didn't write that instead, lol. I think Michael Filerman and David Jacobs knew going in that S14 would be their last, so it might've been nice to use that opportunity to bring back some old favorites. Perhaps, James Houghton (Kenny) and Kim Lankford (Ginger) could have put in an appearance? Or Lisa Hartman Black (Cathy)? Or John Pleshette (Richard)? (IIRC, there was a point where Mack was in trouble and needed an attorney. Perhaps, Karen could have called Richard back to help him.) Maybe they could have made amends with Constance McCashin (Laura) and ask her to put in an appearance or two as Laura's ghost (appearing as a manifestation of Greg's conscience)? Or maybe Julie Harris (Lilimae) could've returned, with the story being that Lilimae comes back for Val's funeral, then stays behind to look after Betsy and Bobby? Moreover, it would've been great to see Patrick Peterson (Michael) and Tonya Crowe (Olivia) one more time. (Brian Austin Green's was on "90210" at that point, so he probably would've been unavailable). And for sure, when they knew it'd be the last season, they could've brought back Douglas Sheehan (Ben) and tied him in with Val's reappearance.

I'd have to agree. Mark Soper was such a wan actor; and his character, Joseph Barringer, proved to be about as useful as his ridiculous Tidal Energy conception.

With our luck, however, Joe Biden could slip and fall while emerging from the shower; Pete Buttigieg could get ahold of some cheap Mexican food laced with botulism; Elizabeth Warren could be startled in a ladies' room and accidentally swallow a toothpick; and Amy Klobuchar could fall to her death in an empty elevator shaft. 2020 could grab everyone BUT Trump and Bernie just to [!@#$%^&*] with us. Joe Biden might. (Although, something tells me he'd at least ask Kamala Harris first.) Bernie Sanders? Prolly not. In fact, I wouldn't put it past ol' Bern to con Pete Buttigieg into becoming his VP, despite the vitriol of the past few days. Otherwise, he'll probably ask Elizabeth Warren.

Girl, you STAY ready for these men to die off, lol.

The NYT picked Klobuchar and Warren, and (surprise, surprise) those two have either faded or crested in the polls; so, yeah, I can see that paper, for instance, turning its' attention toward someone Bloomberg as a potential spoiler in the race. And if Bloomberg actually wins the nomination, you can bet they'll spend copious amounts of time building him and Trump to be a supreme Battle of the New York Billionaires like some no-holds-barred cage match. Not that it would ever happen, but in a way, a Bloomberg/Sanders team-up -- with Bloomberg as President, and Bernie (setting aside his MASSIVE ego and taking the job) as VP -- would cover a lot of bases. Perhaps, many Berners would be satisfied just getting their man in the WH (although, again, not likely -- it's Bernie as President or forget it); while Bloomberg could potentially round up all the disenfranchised voters for Biden, Buttigieg, Klobuchar, Warren, etc.

If KNOTS had continued past S14, though, chances were high that they would have been forced to do the same thing in order to keep down costs.

Bernie said he wouldn't release his medical records? Gee. That sounds SO familiar. Good point.