Khan

Same. Erika Slezak (or Donna Mills) as the new Dr. Laura Horton! Michael E. Knight (or a returning Wesley Eure) as the new Dr. Mike Horton! Larry Bryggman (maybe) as the new Dr. Bill Horton! Cady McClain as the new (and much more age-appropriate) Sarah Horton!

I, too, find that hard to believe. Bernie Sanders loves the spotlight too much just to acquiesce, especially when there will likely be an outcry from his followers NOT to. It'll go down just as you have described, @Chris B. Bernie will lose the nomination; he will drag his feet on bowing out/endorsing the actual nominee; he and his supporters will claim (again) the system was rigged; and by the time he (begrudgingly) endorses the nominee, the damage will have already been done. As I see it, Trump will almost certainly be re-elected. Not that anyone who doesn't support him should give up now -- because, hey, I'm no prophet, and there's always a chance the election could swing the other way -- but, at the very least, we should go into November knowing the odds are stacked against him being voted out. And if/when Trump gets re-elected, I believe we will see several states seriously consider the possibility of seceding from the union, causing one nation to be split into two, or even three. It's no secret the far left wants the republic as it stands to stand no more. In their minds, America has to be destroyed and then remade rather than merely reformed. IMO, however, it'd be the supreme irony to see Bernie Sanders and his ilk locked out completely as the new, reconfigured Americas work out a relationship where they can co-exist peacefully but independently. Oh, the country's going down the toilet, regardless of whether Bernie ends up as the nominee. As I've said, I believe Trump will be re-elected, and that there's no way the nation as it is will survive. Just as the Founding Fathers eventually realized that remaining loyal to the British crown was no longer an option, and Abraham Lincoln realized the nation would never survive so long as slavery was allowed to continue in the southern states, I believe we're on the verge of a moment in our history when certain states will realize that the gap between right and left is too wide ever to be bridged, particularly when there's a (Republican) party in power that courts corruption, foreign meddling and a flagrant disrespect for the constitution that many have been sworn to uphold. Through their actions -- or rather, their inactions -- the GOP has sown an irreversible distrust in our election process, the very bedrock of any democracy. When that occurs, the republic is almost certain to collapse entirely.

Honestly, I don't know what would happen if Bernie weren't allowed this time to be the nominee. I feel like his "followers" would stage an all-out siege on Washington.

Exactly. They endorsed the woman for president, then turned around and stirred up so much s**t over her damn emails that more than enough voters didn't know WHAT the hell to think by the end. The NYT played mind games with Hillary and her supporters, and -- mark my words -- they're about to do the same with Amy and Liz's.

Agree. It doesn't matter whether witnesses are called, or what those witnesses will say under oath. The GOP holds the Senate, and the Senate is determined to acquit Trump on all charges. Ergo, why block testimony or cover up anything? There's not even the threat of losing their voter base, because they've shown how little they care about the facts. So, again, why the cover up? Sigh. Watching the GOP be evil just for the sake of being evil gets exhausting sometimes. One thing's for sure: they know backing Buttigieg is an exercise in futility, lol. But, I contend, the NYT would like nothing more than to see Trump get re-elected. Ergo, if anything, they're going to play up those factors -- if not while endorsing Klobuchar and Warren*, then certainly if/when either guy ends up being the nominee. Of course, there's always Buttigieg surprising everybody, but I doubt it'll come to that, lol. (*That is, if Klobuchar or Warren is who they really want -- and I still don't believe they do.)

Exactly, and I believe their endorsement played into 2016's results, too. Here's what I think: Warren has had a healthy following practically from day one (if not before). Klobuchar hasn't always been mentioned among the front runners; however, recent polling (not to mention, her performance at the last Democratic debate) suggests that is about to change. Of course, the NYT doesn't want to see Trump beaten, but they also don't want Klobuchar or Warren to end up as the nominee running against him. They'd rather it be Joe Biden or Bernie Sanders, because they'd be more "entertaining" as they spar with The Donald in the run-up to Super Tuesday. (Besides, if Klobuchar or Warren were to run against Trump, it'd just be a rerun of Trump/HRC -- and everyone HATES reruns). At the same time, (I believe) the paper is aware of how much we, the general public, has come to distrust much of the MSM...including institutions such as the NYT. They know large sections of this country are likely to reject Klobuchar and Warren merely because they have NYT's seal of approval. Therefore, in a bit of reverse psychology, the NYT's editorial board has endorsed those two ladies -- which makes no sense, by the way, since they can't BOTH end up being the nominee -- in order to knock them out of the running altogether.

So, the NYT has hand-picked Amy Klobuchar and Elizabeth Warren to be their Democratic nominees of choice. (Look out, ladies, it's a trap!) https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2020/01/19/opinion/amy-klobuchar-elizabeth-warren-nytimes-endorsement.html?fbclid=IwAR1hoNFiR-em2WHZpvLgnO5ONB7OAqskH6NqOBy-TYmgR9KRfm2nFjQ1bS4

I, too, never understood where his "Queen of the Night" obsession came from. (Or is it "Lady of the Night"? I always get it mixed up, lol). I certainly don't see it in any clips from the '80s. When Stefano first appeared in Salem, he was obsessed with Julie and in fact had "big plans" for her (according to Pat Falken Smith). I wish we knew what those plans were and why they were ultimately dropped.

I don't believe the love that Roman and Marlena shared couldn't be recaptured. Again, if it's set up properly, I think a real, honest-to-golly Roman/Marlena reunion could work. Just as Roman shouldn't have been thrown under the bus to make John/Marlena happen, however, John shouldn't be ruined -- and his years with Marlena shouldn't be disrespected, if only for fans' sake -- to prop up Roman/Marlena Redux. As a fan of a show that taught me how love is the only thing that sustains us, I have to believe anything is possible. Otherwise, I've learned nothing from watching DAYS, lol.

Paul Rauch: "Just who the hell are you, anyway?" Della Reese: "*I* am an angel, and I am here to tell you that God loves you. Just why he loves even you, I don't know, but I don't pretend to understand everything the father does!"

Dead and buried! Where was Della Reese when she (and we) needed her the most?

True.

ICAM. As others have said, this election is a referendum on Trump. For the sake of our country (and my sanity), we HAVE to vote the man out of office. To do that, Biden (or whoever) will need to form the largest coalition of voters possible. One surefire way to do that would be to choose a POC as their running mate. Is that line of thinking too cynical? Perhaps. But, this is war, ladies and gentlemen; and in war, all is fair.

Same!

I've said it before, @KMan101, and I'll say it again: I don't believe JER enjoyed writing for DAYS. I think he just liked being a HW (instead of a Co-HW or associate/breakdown writer) of a soap opera, period. And yes, there is a difference, lol. I've said (almost) all this before as well, but I think it's still do-able, even with their ages and DAYS' general craziness (and piss-poor budget): 1. Bring back WN as Roman. (WN has said he's willing to return -- but only as Roman, not as that godawful Alex North (who could easily be tossed into the sea of forgetfulness) or another new character). No elaborate explanations, justifications or motivations for the "un-casting" either. Just have him appear again as Roman during a normal episode and carry on. 2. Wait a month (or so) and have Josh Taylor return as Chris Kositchek. Again, no elaborate explanations or nudge-nudge-wink-wink allusions to the fact that he was Roman not too long ago. (JT could maybe change his hair color temporarily, like Judi Evans did when she first came back as Adrienne after playing Bonnie, but that's as far as anyone would need to go). Just have Chris walk through the door at the Brady Pub one afternoon; and have Abe, John, Marlena, Roman and whoever else glad to see him again. 3. Use Chris' reason for returning to Salem after all these years -- a new business venture, perhaps? Something to do with his background as an engineer -- as a way to put him and Kate in each other's orbit. (Maybe Kate could go to work for him, sparks fly, etc). Conflict can arise from two sources: Lucas, who never likes any of Kate's men (lol); and Chris' own reluctance to begin a new romance after the implosion of his marriage. 3a. Mary Frann's dead, and so I'm reluctant to bring back Amanda Howard; Mary Anderson was murdered ages ago; and as for Savannah Wilder...well, do we really need or want Shannon Tweed back, lol? So, let Chris' ex-wife be someone he met, married and divorced during his years away from Salem. Get a "name" actress to play the ex-wife. She doesn't have to be a permanent character, but she does have to be there to try and win back Chris and inadvertently learn/reveal the Big Secret That Will Tear Lucas and Kate Apart -- namely, that Curtis Reed, and NOT Bill Horton, was his biological father. Kate will turn to Chris, Lucas will turn to the bottle, Chris' ex-wife will turn to stone, etc. 4. Repair the damage JER and others have done to Roman over the years by allowing WN's natural qualities (his down-to-earth charm, his easy-going sense of humor, etc.) to shine again w/ others, especially in scenes with DH/Marlena. It's not like redeeming a serial killer (hi, Ben!), so just let Roman BE Roman for a change. 5. Throw in a healthy dose of Roman/Marlena flashbacks to remind (for older viewers) or explain (to newer ones) why the two were such a big deal BITD, as you tease the possibility of a Roman/Marlena reunion. (Perhaps, John and Marlena could be on the outs for some reason, with it looking like John MIGHT end up with Hope -- not Hope as Princess Gina, but Hope as Hope, or as some post-injection Gina/Hope hybrid). At the same time, leave open the possibility of Roman ending up with Hattie, with the conflict coming from Hattie's insecurities (she's still afraid that Roman's only interested in her because of her resemblance to "Doc" -- fears that are elevated, now that he and Marlena are growing closer again). 5a. Since a(nother) Bo Brady resurrection doesn't seem likely, there's a chance John/Hope, which DAYS has been threatening to pull the trigger on since the George W. Bush administration, could ignite, for lack of a better word. (I certainly believe "Jope" would go over better than "Rope," lol). True, "Jarlena" will always have their fans. If written properly, however, with no one's character assassinated all to hell, then a scenario where John ends up with Hope and Roman reunites with Marlena could work. 5b. Scenario #2 -- where (in my wildest dreams) "Marlena" turns out to be a resurrected, brainwashed Samantha and the REAL Marlena Evans turns up -- also could work. In this scenario, Marlena Samantha could remain with John, who knows a thing or two about living someone else's life. He helps her reconnect with herself, they fall in love in the process; and Roman gets back his Doc, who has been away since '87. Again, if written the right way -- and I do believe even okay writing can cover up a multitude of sins, such as the fact that Dee Hall has a tough time playing Marlena, let alone Marlena and her twin(s) -- it could satisfy the "Jarlena" fans as well as the Roman/Marlena ones. 5c. Scenario #2 also leaves "hope" for Hope to be reunited with Bo, who SHOULD be resurrected. 6. In both scenarios, therefore, Hattie becomes expendable...and dangerous. She attempts to murder Marlena and take her place, but ends up in the sanitarium, with Marlena (and Samantha) pledging to support their twin. BUT -- 7. If Scenario #1 doesn't pan out, then John can just reunite with Marlena and Roman can find love again with Hattie (I believe Wayne and Dee could sell Roman/Hattie just as well as they sold Roman/Marlena), and Chris/Kate can continue unabated.

I'll just come right out and say it: 30-year-old Douglass Watson could get it.

I look at Josh Taylor's Roman with Lauren Koslow and Dee Hall and think it all would play so much better with Wayne Northrop's Roman and DH's Hattie (who I definitely think should be revealed as Marlena and Samantha's long-lost twin), and JT's Chris Kositchek with LK's Kate. Anyways. I agree, @titan1978.

Like I always say, the audience will go with you wherever you want to go, so long as you take the steps to get them there. If the show had redeemed Stefano adequately, and if they had argued convincingly why he and Marlena belonged together, then I think a romantic pairing would have been successful. Not everyone would have been won over, mind you, but not every AW fan who had remembered Carl and Rachel's history was won over by their romance either. On the other hand, if DAYS had gone the Ciara/Ben route with Stefano and Marlena -- one where Stefano was "good" now, merely because (Stefano was taking his meds and) Marlena and others said so -- then I believe any attempt to pair them romantically would have backfired. Even worse, it would have damaged Marlena as a character far more than anything this show has done to her since the mid-'90's. I've always believed, too, that the worst part of pairing John with Marlena was that DAYS, and especially JER, had to "kill" the chemistry between Dee Hall and Wayne Northrop's Roman in order to make J&M more palatable to the audience. As I've said on numerous occasions, it wasn't a fair enough fight. Roman was made to look so cranky and overbearing that it made many question what Marlena ever saw in him. In turn, that made WN vulnerable to being axed from the show (which I, as a Roman/Marlena fan, will never forgive the show for) -- when, in fact, if they had written it properly, they might have been able to keep Roman around and possibly pair him with Kate or even a returning Anna.

Ah. Thanks, @Dion!

Thanks for the heads-up, @SFK!

Sarah Silverman was wrong: they aren't being ridiculous. They're lethal.

Yeah, that's why I stopped paying attention to any commentary from either side of the aisle. I just listen (as best as I can) to the facts and then form my own opinions. But, I will say this: Elizabeth Warren sounded like a true Oklahoman when she called out Bernie after the debate for calling her a liar (which CNN's hot mic just happened to pick up, lol). As a lifelong Okie, it's been my experience that we don't let [!@#$%^&*] like that simmer for too long. You call us a liar, we're gonna confront you. Right then, and right there.

Julianne Moore is that rare film/TV actor who remains very proud of her soap past. She's never been afraid to discuss it, and she's always said she never looked it as a "stepping stone" toward where she is today. For that reason alone, she'll always be among my faves.

Dear God.

Eddie Murphy is very tight-lipped, so to see him open up about his tenure at SNL is amazing. I feel like he's arrived at a place in his life where he's more comfortable discussing that and maybe other things. (Am I hinting he should pen a memoir? Yes, I am, lol.)