From someone named Thomas, a few minutes ago…

Regarding your tweet about Bernie Sanders not getting enough press coverage, why should he? Hillary is beating him by 20 points. Do you really think he has a chance at the nomination?

I dunno. It's a long way to go until that gets decided. Sanders stands a decent chance of winning some early primaries and that never hurts anyone's chances. And we can all imagine things that could happen between now and the Democratic Convention that could be real game-changers.

But, hey, all the Republican leaders are saying, as Mitt Romney did this morning, that Donald Trump ain't gonna be the nominee and the press coverage is practically The Donald Trump Comedy Hour. No one thinks Ben Carson has a shot at it even though some polls have him in the lead for the Republican nomination. Jeb! Bush is at 8-10% and running out of loot and he's getting more face time than Sanders. (Okay, admittedly most of Bush's coverage suggests how his candidacy is collapsing. Then again, most of the time when Sanders is mentioned, it's in stories about how he can't win.)

This morning, Larry David's impression of Bernie Sanders on Saturday Night Live seems to be more newsworthy than anything the real Bernie said the last few days.

Like I said, I don't know if Sanders has a real chance to be the nominee. At some point, it has to become an issue that he's not even a member of the party he wants to have nominate him. But I don't think that's what press coverage is about or should be about. I also don't think the Sanders candidacy is only about whether or not he gets to sit behind the big desk in the Oval Office. It's very much about trying to take the Democratic Party more to the left and to shine a spotlight on certain issues which many politicians would prefer to avoid. In that sense, I think he's succeeding. That merits more attention than he's received.

• Wish the press did as much coverage of Bernie Sanders running for president as they do of Joe Biden not running for president.

Two of my areas of interest — comic books and Broadway — came together in 1973 when Charlton Press issued one of the oddest comic books ever. In connection with the release of the motion picture version of 1776, they brought out an adaptation that was…uh, interesting. Western Publishing used to do this kind of thing for their Dell and Gold Key lines but by '73, they'd stop doing that kind of thing. Almost every comic book company had.

I have no inside info on how it came about but I have a pretty fair guess. My guess is that someone at Columbia Pictures remembered when they used to arrange that kind of merchandising with Western or Dell and approached them about it and were turned-down. I'd further guess they went to DC and Marvel and maybe other places before hooking up with Charlton, a firm which didn't say no to much. Charlton occasionally produced some fine comics but they paid poorly and had lousy printing and my sense is that almost every company that made a licensing deal with them was unhappy with the end-product.

At about this time, Hanna-Barbera was doing a lot of comics with Charlton and when the contract ended, they yanked it away and set up a new operation which I worked for. One of the guys I worked for had largely gotten his job because the guy before him had been fired for many bad deals, one of which had been the license to Charlton. I would be surprised if whoever made the deal for the 1776 comic was any happier with how things turned out.

The comic was written by Joe Gill. The Guinness Book of World Records recognizes Paul S. Newman as the most prolific writer of comic books ever. I liked Paul and he sure wrote a lot of them but I always suspected he was in there because he got the bright idea to submit himself for the title. I can think of several other guys who might qualify, one of whom is Joe Gill. Charlton paid so poorly that in order to make a living, Gill had to churn out scripts around three times as rapidly as the guys working for DC or Marvel. Enough of it was good that you have to wonder what he could have done writing at a more human pace.

His adaptation of 1776 was not among his better efforts…nor could it have been, trying to cram a 141-minute movie into 31 pages of comics. (141 was the original release length. Some home video versions run longer.) The songs, of course, were absent but some of the lyrics were retooled as dialogue. Large chunks of the plot were eliminated…

…and, oh yes: Gill cut out all that stuff about slavery.

I assume he was ordered to do that and oddly enough, it may have been a good cut for reasons of space. I doubt he had the room to treat that topic with any sensitivity. (Or maybe Gill looked at his working arrangements with Charlton and just found the whole topic personally distasteful.) In his abridgement, the primary obstacle to getting the Declaration of Independence approved and signed was merely that various delegates were squabbling about various points, most of them largely unnamed. Most of the romantic tensions between John and Abigail Adams, as well as the romance of Mr. and Mrs. Thomas Jefferson, were also trimmed way down.

The artwork was done by Tony Tallarico, who did a lot of work over the years for the lower-paying companies. As with Gill, I suspect he had a lot of talent that didn't show through the low, low rates he was paid. He did a decent job drawing William Daniels in the lead role and seems to have not been given sufficient photo reference on anyone else. It had to have been one of his tougher assignments since all it was really was 31 pages of guys in colonial garb arguing with each other.

Charlton's costs were so low that they probably made a few bucks off the comic, especially if (as there may have been) some sort of promotional deal where copies were given away in some areas to promote the movie. That was done with many of the film adaptations that Western or Dell did.

Anyway, that's about all there is to say about this comic. I am by no means suggesting you seek out a copy of it because it's not good in a bad way or bad in a good way. Given the assignment of adapting a musical about slavery without the music or slavery, I doubt anyone could have done much better. It's just one of the oddest comics I ever came across. And you may have some idea of how many comic books I've seen in my day…

This is an entry to Mark Evanier's list of the twenty top voice actors in American animated cartoons between 1928 and 1968. For more on this list, read this. To see all the listings posted to date, click here.

Most Famous Role: Donald Duck of course.

Other Notable Roles: Huey, Dewey, Louie and (briefly) Daisy Duck, plus he does bit roles in many Disney features, usually making sounds for inarticulate animal characters.  Once in a while, he even did a line or two as Mickey for something.

What He Did Besides Cartoon Voices: He started out in show biz doing impressions, mostly of animals and touring schools to entertain.  Later, Disney equipped him with the above Donald puppet and sent him out to make personal appearances as a goodwill ambassador for the studio.

Why He's On This List: Has there ever been a voice that more people tried to imitate than the quackery of Clarence "Ducky" Nash?  And Donald was such a great character, in large part because of Nash's acting skills.

Fun Fact: As Mr. Nash grew older, he found that doing the duck voice inflamed his throat so he cut back on personal appearances.  But he also never wanted to disappoint anyone so if you met him, he would always do Donald saying hello to you and saying your name.  He's probably the only major voice actor who ever built a career on one role.

Each year, the holiday shopping season kicks off in the Hollywood area with the Hollywood Christmas Parade, which this year is November 29. I wonder if there'll be any outcry from the Fox News types because the parade organizers have selected two atheists as their Grand Marshals.

A conversation with one of America's greatest filmmakers, Tex Avery. I briefly shared an office with Tex when he worked at Hanna-Barbera and he was a lot funnier talking about his cartoons in private than he was in a public interview setting. Still, it's great to see him again…

Matt Taibbi didn't like Hillary Clinton's answers Tuesday night about controlling "too big to fail" financial institutions and preventing another Wall Street crisis.

Speaking of Tuesday night: People keep writing me to see if I agree with them that Bernie Sanders really won the debate. I thought Sanders and Clinton both did well and I've never really been comfy with the idea that that kind of debate is "won." It certainly isn't in the sense that a baseball game or a chess match is won. Baseball games and chess matches have rules and point systems and there's a firm definition of what constitutes winning. Like in baseball, it involves counting the number of players on each team who make it around the bases and get to home plate.

In a debate, it's all subjective, which is why more than one side can claim victory…and usually does. To the extent there is scoring, it can probably be found in the post-debate polling, not about who most people thought won but the polls that show how the candidates now stand. If one gained support and the other lost support, the gainer probably won, regardless of what the boosters for each might argue.

Back from a visit to the surgeon who installed my new right knee. (That's an actual x-ray of it above. Sad to say, that's now the cutest part of me.)

As you may recall, I saw him on Tuesday and my knee was healing much better than could be expected but my lower leg had swollen up somewhat due to drainage from the knee. To solve this, he slapped a thing on my lower leg called a gel cast which acts like a super-powerful compression stocking. I had to limit my computer time and stay in bed…though as you've seen here the last few days, I didn't limit it by much.

Today, he removed the gel cast and we were both very happy with the job it's done. The leg's still a bit swollen but it's nothing that can't be handled by a regular compression stocking…which is what I'm wearing now.

Still limping a bit and I don't have the strength or flexibility that I'm supposed to have but a week or two of physical therapy should change that. I've already cut back on my pain meds and given up the walker. It may be a few more weeks before I trust myself driving and I'm still going to refrain from anything strenuous…still going to confine myself mostly to quarters. But I sure didn't expect to be doing this well this soon after the surgery.

Galen Fott called this to my attention. The great poet Ogden Nash died on May 19, 1971. Cause of death? Eating cole slaw.

Pema Levy thinks the battle for the Republican nomination is going to wage on until March 15, 2016 and the Florida primary. That's 151 days from now.

Walt Hickey says one should not put much stock in the movie ratings on Fandango. I don't put much stock in any of them but Fandango does seem especially configured to get you to buy tickets to everything.

Floyd Norman remembers a mutual friend of ours, the late and wonderful Bob Ogle. I worked with Bob at Hanna-Barbera and I wish the cartoons had been as funny as he was.

Bob went into every meeting with what looked like a little memo pad but it was actually a pad of resignation letters he'd had printed up. I wish I could find the page from it he gave me. It said at the top, "I quit" and it then had a checklist of reasons like, "Inept management" and "Supervision by someone with no sense of humor." At any point during the meeting, he was likely to pull out the pad, check off the things that pissed him off, sign the bottom, hand it in and storm out of the room.

It was so funny that I think people tried to piss him off just so they could watch his performance and get one of his hundreds of resignation notices. No one ever took them seriously because everyone treasured Bob and his input. Does anyone reading this have one of those letters?

Whenever my pal Kliph Nesteroff and I get together, we talk about one of three things: Old Comedians, Older Comedians or Oldest Comedians. I once thought I knew as much about those topics as any human alive but through diligent, almost-obsessive research, Kliph has turned himself into the Doris Kearns Goodwin of guys who played the Catskills…and anywhere else funny people got on stage with an intention to amuse. I am agog at some of the stuff this fellow has researched.

Kliph could probably write eleven books about what he's learned but right now, we have to settle for one. Fortunately, it's a real good one. It's called The Comedians and if you have the slightest interest in that art form, it's a must-have. Here is an Amazon link to advance order a copy. It comes out November 3.

Comedy is a very peculiar profession, one filled with lots of unstable folks and even less stable venues in which to earn a living. Some practitioners never do earn a living while others earn mega-bucks and you can watch the neurosis swell with each newly-amassed million. Kliph covers all aspects of the business in a way that no one else ever has and I also like that he covers comedians you never (or barely) heard of. Great stuff. Please buy enough copies so that he'll continue his research and write at least ten more of these books.

At above left is the cover of Woody, a new biography of Woody Allen that might well be the best book that will ever have my surname on its cover and spine. Unfortunately, the surname in this case refers to my cousin David, who has previously authored acclaimed books on folks like Tony Bennett and Bobby Darin, and is now working the comedy beat. Just the story of how he wrangled one interview with Woody Allen and the answers to a number of his e-mailed questions is fascinating and so is the rest of this book.

David is an unabashed fan of Mr. Allen's but not the kind who's blind to flaws or shortcomings. This is not an authorized biography but it's also not one that Woody made any effort to stop or suppress. In the unlikely event Mr. Allen ever reads it, he will probably feel flattered, though not uncritically so. David, more so than anyone else I've read on this subject, manages to present a coherent, credible arc of Allen as both a filmmaker and a human being, discussing where those two roles have intersected and where they haven't. He spoke to many people who knew Woody well and delves deep, not as a seeker of scandal but as an investigative author.

Since you probably want to know this: David is of the view that Allen is Not Guilty of the molestation charges that have been hurled against him and makes a very solid case for that view. You may remember that I was at one point leaning towards but not wholly in that camp. David and my friend Steve Stoliar convinced me separately that I was leaning in the correct direction. Steve, by the way, is quoted in the book several times as am I. In case my personal interest here is not evident, I should also disclose that I am among those to whom the book is dedicated.

So I probably can't be as objective towards David's book as he is to his subject but I am confident that if you have any interest at all in Woody Allen, you will be fascinated by this book. It's by far the best thing that has ever been written about the man. The book officially comes out November 3rd and here's a link to order your copy. If you don't want to take my word for it, Liz Smith says "For any student of Woody — a man who simply won't, can't stop working and re-inventing — this book is gold." See? She knows.

Neil Gaiman on reading: Why it's important, why libraries are important and why there are no bad books for children to be reading. I wish I could think of something to add to what he says but he pretty much has it covered.