What I Wish Democratic Leadership Would Say to the Justice Democrats After the Midterms

 

Hello. I've gathered all of you this very small room to talk to all of you about the list of 'suggestions' you've submitted be part of our agenda for the upcoming session.

(Puts paper into shredding machine)

Let's be clear. You are now representatives of Congress, elected officials and Democrats. You're now loyal to America, your district and the party. The idea that my party should listen to a dozen, what's the woke term, nuts and make the agenda of Congress something that can't get out of committee and the current President will never sign is a waste of everybody's time. You want to make a show of it on C-SPAN? Go ahead. I'm sure the Republicans will be fine with that. But you're elected representatives, not activists. Act like it.

(After several minutes of shouting)

Oh, take a chill pill. Frankly you should count your blessings we're even talking to you. There are, last I counted, less than 12 of you in the House of Representatives. Ohio has a bigger delegation in Congress than you guys do in all 50 states. And somehow you think you're the voice of the people?

To be clear this conversation's a long time coming. Honestly we should have had it after Biden's election but we were dealing with other things. You know, like trying to run the country and govern responsibly. And by the way, thanks for not helping during that period.  Voting against Biden's infrastructure bill after we compromised with the Senate really made us look good in the eyes of an America who voted for us because they wanted a return to sanity.

Look I know our party doesn't have a reputation for it – hell, we let you guys become members – but we want to win elections and make government policy.  And let's be clear when the Justice Democrats were launched after the 2016 election we were rooting for you guys. We'd gotten our asses handed to us by Trump and we wanted to regain power in the next election. It had nothing to do with Trump so much as that's what political parties do. I'm not sure you guys understand that basic concept.

So our mistake was giving 'the Squad' so much publicity after 2018. I'll admit we were stunned when AOC beat Dan Howley and maybe that explains our reaction. We've never been known for great judgment and I guess we seized on you four because we thought you'd help us take back the White House and Congress in 2020.

Honestly we should have been paying more attention. After the 2018 election two of the founders of the party Kyle Kulinski and Celenk Uygur were gone criticizing it  for 'falling short in cultivating a unified cohort of legislators able to champion priority bills'. And if that didn't drive the point home Uygur would file to run for Congress in November 2019 and he stated he didn't want your help. That should have been a bigger sign.

We were so focused on the four of you who won, we ignored the 71 of you who lost. And I'm not talking about the primaries. I'm talking about those of you who lost in the general in 2018. Let's go through your 'greatest hits:

Audrey Denney and Ammar Campa-Najjar in the California 1^st and 50^th. Lost.

Stephany Rose Spaulding, Colorado 5^th district, ran unopposed. Got less than 40 percent in the general.

Sanjay Patel, Florida 8^th, ran unopposed in the primary. Got less than 40 percent in the general.

James Thompson, Kansas 4^th. 40 percent in the general.

Matt Morgan and Rob Davidson in the Michigan 1^st and 2^nd. Both of them ran unopposed. Both were beating by nearly 15 points.

Jamie Schoolcraft, Missouri 7^th. 30 percent in the general.

Jess King, unopposed in the Pennsylvania 11^th. 41 percent in the general.

Vanessa Adia, unopposed in the Texas 12^th. Barely got a third of the vote in the general.

Randy Bryce Wisconsin 1^st. 42 percent in the general.

 

To drive the point home every time you won a primary in a seat that was either competitive or red, you guys lost. And lost badly. So in 2018, you did nothing to help us regain the House majority. You changed some of the faces in our delegation but that was it.

None of you could win a Senate primary, certainly not Paula Jean Swearengin in West Virginia. So let's go to the governors races. Christine Halquist won with your blessing in Vermont and Ben Jealous did in Maryland. Halquist got humiliated by incumbent Phil Scott and Jealous got blown out by Larry Hogan. So in two of the bluest states in America, the Justice Democrats couldn't win the governorship.

There's a complicated term for that in politics. It's called 'losers'.

Now to your credit you seem to have learned that fact the next time out and you only backed 10 new candidates. It must have hurt when Bernie made it clear he didn't want your endorsement for President.

Anyhow by now it was clear you were only focused on districts you could win and you only tried two more that were competitive. Georgette Gomez in the California 53^rd and Kara Eastman in the Nebraska 2^nd. Eastman was the tell; she'd run in that district two years earlier and lost in the general. She lost again, this time getting 46 percent of the vote compared to 49 percent last time. Gomez only got 40 percent of the vote.

Two years later we gave you one last chance as Odessa Kelly ran unopposed under your endorsement in the Tennessee 7^th. She got 38 percent of the vote. That's the last time you've tried to run in a district that wasn't deep blue.

By that time we'd stop looking for you to help us defeat Republicans and started looking for people who could. This was harder then it should have been because the right has done a great job convincing undecided and working class voters that every single member of the Democratic Caucus in both hoses is AOC or Elizabeth Warren – even those who are white, cis males.

We actually found some in the 2018 election, Democrats who could win in districts Trump carried. By the way 'DINO' is really more of an effective nickname for you guys then it is for Tom Suozzi and Marie Gluesenkamp Perez.  And they should get more credit. They managed to convince people who voted for Trump to vote for them. You still can't convince people who voted for Hilary or Biden to vote for you most of the time.

And yet, perhaps because you seem to believe Fox News is gospel, you decided that you represented 'the people'. Not just the Democratic Party or even the House. "The people'.  I grant you our party doesn't have the greatest track record when it comes to winning over the working class or swing voters, but its better than 'zero', which after five straight elections are the number of seats you've flipped from Republican to Democrat. I know some of you think math is a tool of oppression but 'some' is always going to be more than 'none'.

After the disaster that was 2024 both our party made a deep dive to try and field candidates in all 50 states by the start of the midterms. Your director said you were going to do the same thing. The difference is by the start of 2026 we'd actually managed to do that – and you'd convinced fourteen people to run in eleven states. Actually twelve. You got Nida Allam and Cori Bush to run again for seats they'd already lost.

Some people might have finally gotten the message after five straight cycles of out and out failing to convince Democratic voters, never mind the electorate, that your agenda was the one that the masses wanted. But I guess you're more like us then you think, in that no one's ever accused you of making sane choices.  You decided you could convince the masses you were on your side by never talking to half of them ever again. Seriously some of you make us miss Marjorie Taylor Greene. At least by the end she was showing some signs of sanity.

Oh sure, you managed to the great successes in a few primaries but you didn't do anything to help us grow our majority. No you decided the best way to help the Democratic Party in the midterms was to run in districts Republicans weren't even contesting. Yes I'm looking at you Chris Rabb. Big help in Pennsylvania this cycle. We could have done it without you and it might have been easier if we had.

We've been too polite the last few cycles. We've given you chance after chance to convince the electorate they want you have to sell. They don't. You can shout and scream all you want about us losing in 2024 because we didn't stress Gaza enough.  To be very clear we were trying to win Michigan and Wisconsin, which are in the Midwest, not in the Middle East. I know you guys think the world revolves around every word you say but it never did.  They rejected your agenda when you were mild on Israel in 2018, you really think they'd be more inclined to hear you when you've basically made it part of your platform that Congress should vote to dissolve Israel?

By the way Representatives Valdez and Chevalier Congress doesn't have that power. It never did. I'm beginning to think most of you ran for Congress without having the slightest idea how government works. I know you believe in the damn magic lantern theory that basically says Presidents can press buttons and will policy into agenda and that basically proves that you spent your entire time in college protesting and didn't go to a single Government and Politics class.

If the President had that power, well, he wouldn't be a king. He'd be God. And since you guys spent so much time arguing against the former and think organized religion is a hoax I don't think you spent a moment in your life that wasn't on your cell phone. You might as well use your degrees for toilet paper for all you got from your educations.

So this is how things are going to work in this cycle and for the foreseeable future. You can say whatever you want to the media or your followers, make all the videos you want. Go nuts on college campuses saying your speaking to the people. But when we want you to vote on any agenda, you shut your mouths and do it. That's what party unity is. The Republicans have put that to an art form. Part of the reason we've had trouble winning voters is because we can't control our nuts as well as they can control theirs.

If you were so anti-establishment, you shouldn't have decided to run for one of the biggest in America. We're here to try and make the government work in an era when people believe – rightfully – that it's broken. And trust me when I tell you this, in eight years you've done absolutely nothing to either help us fix it or even give the impression you want too.

You don't like that? There's the door. You can quit anytime. And if you don't want our help in the next election, we're fine taking away our endorsement and our money. If the people are with you, as you claim they are, then you don't need such illusionary things.  You'll easily be able to win against the Republicans in your district – or you know if we choose to primary you. And we do have a track record of doing that. Ask Jamaal Bowman. Ask Cori Bush.

The alternative is that you find a way to convince the masses that your agenda is popular. And that means being able to flip a district that's red or even purple.  And those of you in New York might want to keep in mind that Zohran didn't go anywhere near Long Island when he was trying to reshape the party in New York. (And by the way Tom Suozzi and Laura Ryan want to make it very clear they're not returning his calls for a reason.)

It's a big country. There's lot of places for you to prove you can. The fact that you've completely failed in all of your attempts shouldn't discourage you. After all you have Democrat as part of you name for a reason.

That concludes our meeting. I'm sure you have lots of speaking engagements on college campuses or hundred dollar a plate dinners in which you're the featured speaker of why capitalism is a sucker's game to attend. Don't worry. After all, being a hypocritical is a job requirement in this town. We just pass legislation in our spare time.

 

Author's Note: While this is a satire, all of the names of defeated Justice Democrat candidates are real ones, as are the percentage of how badly they lost in their races between 2018 and 2022. All of them were found out by a one minute google search – something that its clear to me very few people in the media have done at any point in the last eight years.

Another reminder to do your homework.

 

 

My Predictions (And Hopes) For the 2026 Emmy Nominations, Week 3, Part 1: Outstanding Limited Series/Anthology

 

In the decade that I've classified as Peak Limited Series there are always an amazing number of great contenders for the prize going into the Emmy nominations and one overwhelming frontrunner. In this cycle that's true in the former but in the latter its absolutely not. Because every end of year awards show was dominated by Adolescence across the board we have no real frontrunner not only in this category but any of the categories that will follow.

The five nominees that I've selected are the most likely to have contenders in nearly every major category in a few weeks' time. The usual providers are offering big contenders with a very strong possible that one new face may break through in a big way. Here are my choices

 

All Her Fault (Peacock)

Those of you who read my column last year know what a big fan I was of this show. I basically binged it just in time to put in on my ten best list of 2025. I spent much of the end of year cycle pushing for it and Sarah Snook throughout the end of year races. And now it looks poised to put Peacock, which has quietly been putting together some of the best shows of any streamer in the last few years, in the Emmy race in a major category for the first time in its run.

All Her Fault was by far one of the most brilliantly literary adaptations I've seen in the past decade and I've seen some masterpieces. In a rare move for this past cycle it’s the only literary adaptations that's going to contend. And by transplanting Andrea Mara Irish set saga into Chicago the writers did such a brilliant job you can't imagine it working in any other setting. Indeed there's an argument, good as the novel, this adaptation is far better.

Much of its power comes from the performances of the two women at its center, played by those forces of nature that are Sarah Snook and Dakota Fanning. Snook is among the frontrunner for her second Emmy for her work as Marissa Irvine, the working mother who goes to pick up her son at  a playdate and becomes the center of a nightmare. Fanning is just as brilliant as Jenny, the mother who finds out her nanny essentially set herself up in a position to abduct Marissa's child and who finds out just how shaky her own marriage is.

Both women are backed up by an incredible supporting cast including some of the darkest work Jake Lacy has ever done and Michael Pena as a force of integrity who has to compromise for tough choices. The story ends up playing with chronology and one is forced to realize the catchphrase "All these nice people killing each other" has a darker subtext.

I don't know how much of a chance this show has at the grand prize: this is an incredible field of talent and as I said there are no clear frontrunners. But this is clearly one of the best limited series in a field of incredibly strong ones.

 

The Beast In Me (Netflix)

This season was an unprecedented year for purely original limited series, something that is rare when so many of the best pieces are adaptations. The Beast in Me very quickly became a sensation at the end of year awards, earning multiple nominations for Best Limited Series and acting nominations for Matthew Rhys and Claire Danes in one of the most unsettling pieces that isn't from a best selling novel in a long time.

Rhys plays Nile Jarvis, the heir to a billionaire housing legacy whose wife disappeared leaving no body and a suicide note. He's just moved to Oyster Bay with a security entourage, barking dogs and a new wife. Danes plays his new neighbor Aggie Wiggs, a non-fiction author whose spent the last four years trying to write a follow-up to her first work. Her life has fallen apart ever since the death of her son four years ago and a mental breakdown that followed.

The two of them begin a frightening dance as Aggie tries to find out the truth behind her neighbor as well as the horrible things he might still be capable of doing. Both leads are cast against type; Rhys is playing someone loathsome and potentially monstrous; Danes someone who can barely function. It’s a fascinating dance. And it's led by an incredible supporting cast as well including Brittany Snow and Jonathan Banks in roles you can't quite believe they can do.

Like All Her Fault The Beast in Me has been a major contender in end of year nominations and despite all of the great shows in the interim I still see no reason why it won't be among the final five.

 

Beef Season 2 (Netflix)

After the first season of Beef swept the Emmys in 2023 Lee Jung-Jae chose a different path for Season 2. Rather than follow the saga of Korean-Americans he chose to look at two different couples: Joshua and Lindsay, the two managers of a country club and Ashley and Austin, two twenty-somethings who are struggling for poverty.  The younger couple seems more devoted then the older one, they don't fight and they are stunned to see Joshua and Lindsay in a knockdown brawl. In an effort to attain upward mobility Lindsay blackmails the couple for a job she's not remotely qualified for. Joshua and Lindsay, who are dealing with financial strains, find a way to manipulate her for her own gain.

In keeping with the past season things quickly spiral out of control, showing both the lack of stability in both relationships. Jung-Jae chooses to take Season 2 to take a different look at the class divides we have particularly with the one percent and how it protects old money rather than new. He heads his cast with two of the greatest actors of the 21^st century Oscar Isaac and Carey Mulligan as Joshua and Lindsay and two young talents Charles Melton and Callie Spaeny as his younger couple as well as an incredible group of supporting actors from William Fichtner on down.

The second season of Beef didn't land as powerfully as the first and as a result what was supposed to be a race that it would dominate has now seemed less likely. But that doesn't mean the second season is any less memorable, bizarre, hysterical or weird then the first one or just as brilliantly painful to watch. Jung-Jae chose to right approach when he decided to turn Beef into an anthology. It's not like he's going to have a shortage of material when it comes to how rage effects for the foreseeable future.

 

Hard Man (HBO)

After his Baby Reindeer became a cultural phenomena and swept the 2024 Emmys Richard Gadd, who won for acting, writing and producing had everybody anticipating his follow-up project. Gadd chose to go even darker, bulking up and creating a project that deals with much of the same subject matter as Reindeer but takes a far, darker and more unrelenting look at it.

The series follows Niall and Reuben from their teenage years until their confrontation on Niall's wedding day. It shows the young Reuben as an alpha male from day one with the threat of violence in everything he does and Niall both fascinated and repelled. Niall is terrified of his sexuality and can't seem to face his attraction to men, even as the world becomes more accepting he becomes less so. Reuben spends his youth being repulsive and at one point engaging in a horrific beating of a young man. When he asks Niall to lie about it in order to save him from prison Niall can't do it, which leads to things getting worse.

What Gadd makes clear, both as writer and as Rueben as an adult is that he and Niall are both two sides of the same coin when it comes to how toxic masculinity can reverberate. Reuben takes his vision of being a provider and his own failures out on the world in horrific form while Niall takes it out on himself. They are the only two people who can understand each other and yet they only seem alive when they are destroying each other and it progresses to a horrifying – but inevitable – conclusion.

In only his second series Gadd has made it clear he is one of the greatest creative forces in TV working today. Half Man shows what Adolescence only implied about the nature of toxic masculinity and how destructive it can be around those who suffer it. I don't know if this series will receive the awards Adolescence did but in my opinion it’s the better work by far and just as deserving of the prizes.

 

Love Story: JFK Jr. and Carolyn Bissette (FX)

I have astonished by how Ryan Murphy and his writers have done a brilliant job in so many limited series in the last decade showing the most monstrous parts of human nature in our society. So I was delightfully surprised that for his latest work with FX Murphy decided to focus on something that almost seems saccharine in the 21^st century: a love story. 

The title is basically all that the writers are interested in. To be sure there are stories about the difficulties of being in the spotlight and being part of a political family but that's a secondary part. The writers want to tell how JFK Jr and Carolyn Bessette fell in love, got married and how it was tragically cut short. It's surprising how this being just as riveting as so many mysteries and darker stories.

They are helped by two total unknowns in the title roles: Paul Anthony Kelly and Sarah Pigeon who manage to show the life beneath the tabloid. We see how JFK Jr is drawn to a woman who isn't awed by his last name or what he represents and how it fascinates him, a woman who doesn't want to be in the spotlight. We see how Carolyn was very much her own force in Calvin Klein and could have been prominent in the world of fashion. We see how the Kennedys, first Caroline (Grace Gummer) and so many of the rest resisted Junior's romance, even though its clear no woman would have been good enough. And we watch after their glorious wedding, how the paparazzi do much to break Carolyn down and destabilize their marriage. The dual tragedy is not just their tragic death but how both lost their lives before they could realize their happiness as a couple.

I don't know what the writers will do to follow up this story (it took seven years for them to come up with a second season of Feud). But I appreciate the magic and gentle touch of this one – even if it means that the 1990s are now considered 'a period piece'

 

 

For Your Consideration

DTF St. Louis (HBO)

The only reason I'm submitting this series FYC is because there are only five nominees in this category. There's also an excellent chance that it will be nominated in this category regardless: it already has been nominated by the Astras and its actually won in this category at the Gotham TV awards.

And it deserves to be nominated. It's brilliantly original, hysterically funny and is so well done that I actually think that it’s a satire of so many of the great dramas that have been on networks like HBO in the past. I honestly think giving the rhythm in which the characters speak, the flashing back and forth with the chronology, the way the big mystery isn't actually a mystery, that there's no real crime at the center of everything that DTF St. Louis would work as a satire of True Detective. That's actually the reason I'm not certain it will be nominated: it's too clever by five-eighths and historically the Emmys like their limited series to be genuine and gritty to the point of lunacy.  And their track record of nominations in this category for shows that are not dramatic is shaky at best.

But don't kid yourself. DTF St. Louis is a wonderful show that deserves all the nominations it can get. It's going to contend in quite a few categories as you'll see below. And if you think it’s a little too weird for the Emmys, no limited series is normal. It just looks that way from across the street.

Tomorrow I deal with Outstanding Lead Actor in a Limited Series. Nominees are pretty clear but I don't have a frontrunner yet.

Homicide Rewatch: Blood Ties, Part 2

 

Teleplay by David Simon ; story by Tom Fonatana & James Yoshimura

Directed by Nick Gomez

 

In the middle section of the three part opener of Season Six we find ourselves dealing with two stories. One is a subplot that is one of the most comic murders Homicide will deal with (and its dealt with some humorous ones. The other, which continues the investigation into Melia Brierre, is far more serious and at the time drew far more controversy among long time viewers.

The former, which bears the biggest imprint of the author, reminds the viewer the importance of setting of Homicide. Baltimore is not the main character of this show in the way that Simon would famously claim it was of The Wire five years later but it's very much an important series regular. I've referred to this in passing in several of my reviews of this series but I don't think I've emphasized how groundbreaking it was for a network drama to be shooting in Baltimore at a time when every other series was being filmed in LA. It had been just as groundbreaking when Law & Order had filmed in New York at the start of the decade but unlike the more iconic series while the writers and much of the staff were from Baltimore they rarely drew attention to in a particularly showy way. One of the handful of times that Baltimore was directly put at the center of the setting is in the major storyline where Munch and Kellerman get 'a red ball with seams'. They're called to Camden Yards in the middle of a day game with the Orioles in the midst of a tight pennant race.

During the 1990s the Orioles were more of a contending team then they'd been in a decade (and in fact would end up not contending for another twenty years) Indeed much of the reason this episode was at the center of the story was because many believed the Orioles would be in the World Series that year. Unfortunately by the time the episode aired on October 24^th 1997 the Cleveland Indians had eliminated the Orioles in the ALCS and would do on to lose to the Florida Marlins in a world series so painful that it killed many of the viewers and commentators watching it. That doesn't change the fact that its still one of the most entertaining stories in Season Six and one of the most quintessentially Baltimore storylines.

Munch and Kellerman are called to the Camden Yards where a panicked adviser tells them that a New York tourist, one Tommy Elefante, has been found dead in the midst of an Orioles game. Everyone is initially excited about this – Falson wants Munch to pull one of the Oakland stars out of the lineup until the eighth inning and Gharty wants Munch to ask one of the Orioles management if Armando Benitez will be getting any more time in the bullpen for the fantasy league. (I'll get to how this pays off, because its hysterical.) When Munch and Kellerman get there the security crew chief shows up panicked and before he can open his mouth Munch says his line for him, tourist attraction, 48,000 fans, important this be done quietly and without attention. And of course even though the detectives have literally just gotten there when he finds out they haven't immediately solved the case he calls the governor.

Kellerman actually seems unwilling to believe the governor will be called and for once Munch actually seems clued in: "A murder at the Yards in a late season game with the playoffs just around the corner? You're talking millions of tourist dollars in ticket revenue." After the description of fecal gravity they walk into the stadium and Kellerman says: "Lucky us. There's only 48,000 people here with a possible motive."

It doesn't help that Elfante is the quintessential horrible Yankee fan, degraded Davey Johnson and the sainted Cal Ripken ("The Iron Mitt") The fans are distracted by the game and seem more interested about how Jimmy Key is pitching then the fan's death. And in one of those hysterical twists he's not been killed by an Oriole fans but his fellow New Yorker who can't even manage to hide his Bronx accent, doesn't know how to pronounce Baltimore, and agrees to confess if they'll let him finish watching the game and by him a dog and a beer. (The fans cheer as he's hauled off…because there's a rally, of course.) He and his friend got drunk, threw a battery or two at the left field ("Where I come from it's a custom," he says proudly) he then beat his friend to death and then went back to the bleachers even though he changed his seat. He makes it clear that there is a pennant race in the American League East and he wants to see the game.

"Not my day. A pinch hit home run in the bottom of the tenth… and I have to cop to murder." For a Yankee fan, it's hard to know which he considers worse. The two of them rode four hours as Yankee fans because they thought the Yankees would be playing the Orioles that day. When Munch tells them the makeup game wasn't until next week, something the New Yorker didn't know until they scalped the tickets.  Then in the first Elfante tells this fan that Robby Alomar is the best second baseman in the league. Worst when they go to the bathroom Elfante tells him that the Orioles are a better team. And worse they were the better team last year. "The Yankees wouldn't have won that series except for the fan that stole the game!" (See below for details.)  So like any good New Yorker he knows he has to lay a beating and he throws one punch and Elfante does a header.

 

The larger problem with the Brierre investigation – the one that troubled many viewers at the time – was how Frank Pembleton spends the first two episodes doing everything possible not to look at the most likely suspects. Just as troubling in the minds of many was how Giardello seemed determined to keep the Wilsons save from the eyes of his detectives, even if it means protecting them from murder.

This never troubled me that much at the time and does so less now for multiple reasons. For one thing its been established that Al Giardello has a long history with many of the prominent voices in the black community. We saw in Season Three his complicated friendship with Sam Thorne who he clearly respected and it took him a while to get around to investigated Burundi Robinson because he believed he was doing good work for the black community. It's easy to see his relationship with the Wilsons in the same light.

Frank's case appears different as we know this is a man who has adamantly pursued the truth and considers all victims equal in death. But it's worth noting in five seasons he's never once been in the position to investigation an African-American like Felix Wilson. This is a man who we've seen spending every day seeing the absolute worse of black men and women in his city, the majority of who are dope fiends and criminals. We've saw how much a fourteen-year old African-American killing another fourteen year old affected him because of the wasted life and we know how afraid he was of bringing a child into the world. He's justifiably cynical because of the job and the people he should respect – like the bosses and the higher-ups – he knows too well are just political animals who have no use for the rank and file.

Into this world comes Felix Wilson a man, who as we see in this episode, is a man who has done good work for the poor and misfortune minorities in Baltimore. Wilson is a black multimillionaire in an America that has built multiple obstacles against that happening and he has used his success to give back to the community. Pembleton has no heroes in his day to day life; is it so wrong that he wants to believe the best in one who has given no sign of being anything but one?

Its worth noting at every part of this its clear Frank feels more committed to this then Al is. Indeed, his decision to leak the suspect to the press in order to put daylight between the Wilsons is so blatantly unhelpful that Pembleton actually calls Al on it. He even is willing to say that while he believes the Wilsons are innocent, he thinks they should submit blood and hair samples if only to eliminate them as suspects.  The fact that Giardello then pulls him off the case to have him go to the rec center for the sole purpose of showing him the good Felix Wilson is doing to the community is the first time we've seen him putting his finger on the scales and not in a good way. Frank knows he's being manipulated but allows himself to be so even when Wilson acknowledges the manipulation is in play. In the scene that follows as he and Bayliss are driving to the factory you can tell there's a part of him trying to justify it to himself as much as his partner. This might have bothered some viewers but its actually part of how Frank will continue to show growth even in Braugher's final season: even as they plan to end his chapter the writers are still finding depths in him that the viewer is unaware of.

To Ballard, who just transferred from Seattle and has no idea of the importance of Wilson the fact that Pembleton and Giardello seem hung up on 'Caja' rather then looking at Felix and Hal, seems like they're giving privileged treatment to rich people. To Gharty there's clearly something darker in play – and this is the episode that makes it clear where he stands in a way that is guaranteed to make the liberal viewer uncomfortable, even as we acknowledge the greater point. The most fascinating man to watch in this scenario is Bayliss who makes it clear that he's just along for the ride. However when Ballard makes it clear she wants to have a talk with Hal Wilson Bayliss gives tacit approval.

The contrast comes in the interviews: Bayliss and Pembleton deal with Regina and Thea with something close to kid gloves while Ballard and Gharty take on Hal with a slightly more pressing attack. Despite his attitude afterwards it's hard for me to look at this as any other tactic. Hal takes the appearance of an entitled prep school kid who seems above it all and deflects the questions. Its only the fact the detectives are white and Hal is black that makes it different. Ballard treats Gharty with anger afterwards acting as if he's racist and she talks with him about the idea of Baltimore being black.

The Gharty-Ballard partnership is a fascinating dynamic because its one we genuinely haven't seen on Homicide: a young twenty-ish detective with a season veteran. Both Thorne and Gerety would be superb because the despite the clashing politics and worldview both had there is a genuine respect. It's also interesting to see Ballard as the most openly liberal Gen X type whereas Gharty sees the world in real terms. She wants to get blood and hair samples from Felix and Hal because that's the way she would do things but Gharty makes it very clear there's a different power structure in Baltimore.

"Even if you were the primary, you think Giardello would let you work this case the way you want it? Not a chance in hell. Giardello would still be in our faces. He'd still be working to protect Wilson and his family…You and I, we're just working the case, taking in the facts…Giardello and Pembleton they are covering Wilson's ass because his ass is the same color as theirs. I'm not saying Giardello is a bad lieutenant, I'm not saying Pembleton is a lousy cop, but the racial stuff is right there on the table. Nobody's talking about it, but it's there."

Gharty is speaking in the frequently crude terms that have made up his character from the start. What makes the viewer uncomfortable is that we've seen what Giardello and Pembleton are doing and its hard to disagree because it makes us take the side of a man whose using such bigoted terms.

The fact that Pembleton is at the same time trying to argue that Ballard and Gharty are racist and that he's being the same detective we've always seen makes a contrast that is fascinating: we're so inclined to see Frank as the hero that we want to disbelieve the evidence of our eyes – and it becomes harder to do so once he learns that Caja is has been in a Haitian prison for four months. And when Giardello comes down and is pissed that it had been leaked that Caja was no longer a suspect – and more importantly, that the Wilsons are being harassed – the simmering tension between Pembleton and Ballard in particular explodes.

Its refreshing the first person to get into a pissing contest with Frank Pembleton and be on the ride of things is a woman. Gharty then pushes back at Frank, Bayliss defends his partner and unfortunately Frank starts defending the Wilsons.  Its Frank who starts using the most racial of terms to refer to how Ballard and Gharty see the Wilsons. Sadly then Gharty points out that they're black and successful and have half of city hall in their pocket. Again despite his crudeness he's not wrong: indeed much of The Wire will make it very clear how much the city is in control of powerful African-Americans who are fine with the status quo even as it ostensibly comes on the backs of 'their own people'.  Pembleton is right when he points out how things change when Irish and Italian ruled the city, but so is Gharty when he says two wrongs don't make a right. And its telling that Frank takes Bayliss's 'betrayal' the hardest.

That said it's telling that at this point in their partnership Frank knows that if Tim thinks he's pulling his punches he really is. So while he seems to be acting like a crybaby when he decides to bring in Felix Wilson we know at some level he realizes he has to do it. Bayliss has always been the conscience of the unit and Frank knows he can't mess with it.

The scene in the box between Wilson and Pembleton is a high point as we get to see two of the greatest actors of all time sharing the screen.  Wilson acts like he wants to see the 'hot seat', almost like he's looking forward to being interrogated. The two of them talk about what it's like to be black in a white world, they talk about Al Giardello, Felix Wilson says he thinks Al has the more important job, Frank says he knows Wilson is not some CEO out to make a buck.  Frank tells Wilson the details about the murder and then he says that they'll need a blood sample. Frank then lowers his voice and makes it clear he doesn't want to do this but he has too. Its uncomfortable for us to see him contorting himself in this position. And then comes what is a shock though it shouldn't be given what the viewer has been through for five seasons.  Felix Wilson had sex with Melia that night. He had in fact been having an affair with her.

Its almost worth having had to go through the last two episodes to see the stunned look on Kotto's face and the genuine shock on Braugher's as he realizes his instincts have been completely wrong.  Braugher looks defeated and broken in a way we rarely see: he can barely manage to go through the motions in asking for the blood sample and when Wilson walks out the door he can barely say anything. Even in the aftermath when Ballard points out that Wilson has not only had sex with the maid and lied to the police Giardello and Pembleton are still trying to find ways out of this that they wouldn't do with anyone else.  Its only when the Wilson's attorneys show up and make it very clear that they will not be answering any more questions – or submitting blood and hair – that Frank and Al are forced to face the fact that they can no longer make excuses for the man they've been defending.

And that this story isn't going to have a happy ending for the Wilson family.

 

 

NOTES FROM THE BOARD

Mahoney PTSD: Falsone corners Stivers after telling her about Georgia Rae's bail review hearing and tells her he looked at the file and says he's partnered with Lewis but he still wants to know from her. Stivers takes this hard. "So you sleep with the guy a few times and as soon as he goes to the john, your hands are in his wallet, seeing where he's been and where's he done? Either you trust a man or you don't? (Considering how things will play out later this season there's multiple ironies in play.) Stivers then confronts Lewis about it (while he's looking at Playboy) and they discuss the possibility that Falsone may be from IID and the two detectives bicker about how badly things might go if this blows up.

 

'Detective Munch': Lots of good lines. When he finds the Yankee cap on Elefante "We should check the Maryland annotated code. I'm not sure this is a crime in Baltimore." (There's an argument outside of the Bronx it’s a justifiable homicide anywhere else.) This is followed by his wonderful description of how things will go:

"Right now the governor's screaming at the mayor, who's berating the commissioner, who's abusing Bonfather, who's torturing Gaffney, who's kicking it all over Gee's shoes. We don't put this case down by the 7^th inning stretch, you're back in auto and I'm walking a beat."

The best moment comes at the end when Munch gets to see Scott Erikson. Munch then asks him if Benitez is going to have any save opportunities. Erikson looks over his shoulder. "I don't know. Why don't you ask him?" Benitez then says: "Give me a break." At least you solved the murder.

It was the 1990s: Enough time has passed that I think it's worth explaining at least one of the references.

In the 1996 ALCS the Yankees and the Orioles were playing when a Yankee hit a fly ball that a fan named Jeffrey Maier grabbed and made sure the Yankees would homer and eventually win the game. But as much as Munch and Kellerman might thing otherwise, the Yankees did win the series in five games and the Orioles never had a chance in that series. I know because I watched every game of it.

Scott Erickson pitched 16 years in baseball spending his longest tenure with the Orioles 1995-2000 and again in 2002. In 1997 he won 16 games in 33 starts with a 3.69 ERA which in the 1990s was a big deal. Armando Benitez made his debut with the Orioles in 1994 and was with them until 1998. He would eventually pitch for (horror) the Mets and (blasphemy) the Yankees in 2003. He would eventually go 40-47 with 289 saves in his career. For the record in 1997 he had one of the least successful postseason series ever by a relief pitcher. In the four games the Orioles lost, they lost by one run, and in three of them he was on the mound for the final run, being charged with 2 losses and a blown save. So maybe he should have gotten less save opportunities?

Hey, Isn't That… Lynne Thigpen, who plays Regina Wilson, made her debut in Godspell. Five years later she made her official film debut in the cult classic The Warriors as DJ. She made several appearance in TV shows like Gimme A Break!, Rosie in Season 2 of thirtysomething. Naomi Sayers on the short run series FM and DA Ruby Thomas in the 1991-1992 season of LA Law. She then became beloved to a generation of viewers (including me) for playing The Chief on PBS's Where in the World is Carmen Sandiego for five seasons..

After playing Regina she played Judge Ida Boucher in three episodes of LA Law and Carla Howard in John Singleton's remake of Shaft. In 2000 she was cast as Ella Farmer, the secretary in CBS's crime drama The District. On March 12, 2003 she suffered a cerebral hemorrhage and died at her home at only 54. Her premature death was a tragic loss to fans of theater, film and television.

 

Tracking the Justice Democrats, Part 3:Right Now Hakeem Jeffries Is Taking The Justice Democrats As Seriously As They Deserve – Which is, Honestly, the right Amount

 

 

As I've mentioned before I live in New York where many crucial members of Congress live including Hakeem Jeffries, House minority leader and in line to become Speaker should the Democrats win Congress this November.

I've never considered him as seriously as Chuck Schumer, mainly because he isn't in my district. But I have to give him props for handling a question in the aftermath of Darializa Avila Chevalier's victory over Adriana Espaillat on Tuesday.

In the aftermath of toppling a prominent Democrat in House leadership Chevalier in her victory speech said something along the lines of: "Hakeem Jeffries, you're next." A reporter than asked Jeffries if he was worried about a primary challenge in 2028. Jeffries said: ""Ask a serious question."

The reason I respect Jeffries is for his restraint. If I were in his shoes I would have said something along the lines of: "You're shitting me, right? I'm busy dealing with all the problems of being in charge of the House Democrats now and doing everything for us to take Congress back this November and you have the balls to ask me if I'm worried about being primaried in two years? Do you people have the same short attention spans as some of the members of my caucus? I'm worried about this election and you're worried about the next one?! What have you been smoking and can I have some? I need to burn off some stress!"

Jeffries, in my opinion, would have every right to be that mad. Because right now he is focused on whether or not the Democrats will control Congress in a few months' time. That is likely but not certain and he knows it. And he also knows because he's been in Congress awhile that in the last eight years AOC and the Squad have done little, if anything, to help the Democrats either keep the majority or govern responsibly as a party. He was in a position to see that in 2020 when members like Jamaal Bowman and Cori Bush did much to destroy Biden's legislation in the House when they were trying to compromise to get it passed in the Senate and he is painfully aware of how when they have been in the minority or when Trump has been President they've done everything in their power to make House Democrats look like children with performative stunts and activism.

Jeffries is also very aware that if he wants to be Speaker the key thing is for the Democrats to win a majority in November and in the last three election cycles the Justice Democrats have done nothing to make that easier. To put in the context of this article they have not helped the party win seats in swing districts or even redder ones so that they can help win the majority. He and his colleagues no doubt realized that after Biden's election showed exactly were and Harris's defeat drove it home.

He knew the  Justice Democrats have a long history of writing checks their party can't cash. So when in  January 2025 they announced that they would be recruiting candidates for the next midterms in all 50 states he had reason to be skeptical.

Over the last year he like many Democrats had reasons for optimism. Almost from the start of 2025 the national party which has been overperforming at a state and local level in nearly every election that year, starting with two Congressional races in Florida and continuing across the board in nearly every state of the union. This includes states where the Democrats have underperformed for years including statehouse wins in Iowa.

  Going into  2026 the Justice Democrats spectacularly failed that standard, recruiting only fourteen candidates to run in eleven states. Meanwhile the national party was undergoing a major recruitment drive to run if not in every state of the Union then very close to it. As a result the Democrats look poised to make gains in places they haven't been competitive for years, if not decades, including the Delegate-at-Large in both Montana and Alaska and perhaps as many as three of the four Congressional districts in Iowa. The Justice Democrats didn't find anyone to run in these states at all in their long search.

Reluctantly I admit that so far the 2026 midterms have been a decent one for the Justice Democrats. With the primary cycle nearly over they've managed to gain at least four new members: Adam Hamawy in New Jersey, Chris Rabb in Pennsylvania and Claire Valdez and Darializa Avila Chevalier in New York. It's conceivable in November they may gain at least one new member in California.

But as Jeffries is aware of these are all already seats that were safely Democratic to begin with. It will change some of the faces in Congress next cycle but not the balance of power. And its particularly telling that in nearly every state where the Justice Democrats have challenged so far there are races that Jeffries and the Party are more focused on – because Republicans currently hold them.

Take North Carolina where Nida Allam tried and failed for the second time to unseat Valerie Foushee. Right now the Democrats are trying to hold Don Davis's seat in the first which has been redistricted as Republican and Jamie Ager is trying to unseat Chuck Edwards in the 11^th. These are districts that in 2024 both went Republican by huge margins, between 10 and 12 percent. That Allam didn't try to run in either of those districts – or for that matter any of the more conservative ones -  and instead chose to spend her time and energy challenging an incumbent progressive showed where her priorities were – and how they contrasted with Jeffries.

Control of the House might very well go through Pennsylvania where no less then four districts held by Republicans are in play. Last year three of them went for the Republican candidate by around one percent. In Brian Fitzpatrick, who's running for reelection in the 1^st he's one of the few Republicans in a district Harris carried. These are vital races for the party.

And what did Chris Rabb do to help? He chose to run in the third district, one so blue that the Republicans aren't even contesting. That race alone should speak volumes about just the kind of fights the Justice Democrats want to have.

Now look at New York. Yes Mamdani did manage to help primary three incumbent Democrats from the left. But the key word is incumbent. As with Pennsylvania New York will also play a critical role in control of the house and that fight will come down to four districts: the third, the fourth and the 19^th in which Democrats Tom Suozzi, Laura Gillen and Josh Riley respectively are incumbent and the 17^th where Republican Mike Lawler is currently incumbent. All four of these districts were decided by narrow margins and there is a certain crossover. Suozzi one his district by 3.6 percent in one Trump carried  by 4.3 percent and Lawler won by 6.3 percent in one that Harris carried by less than one percent. Jeffries is far more concerned about holding the line in the three seats that are Democrat and hoping that Cait Conley – who won her primary to far less publicity then Chevalier – can beat Lawler in November.

You actually see this pattern in two of the states where the Justice Democrats still have candidates who are running this cycle.  In Colorado the Democrats will no doubt be making an effort to unseat Lauren Boebert and more important Gabe Evans in the 8^th district, a seat he won in 2024 by less than one percent. Melat Kiros spending so much time and energy trying to primary a Democrat in the 1^st will not help the party there. In Michigan the Democrats are trying to win in three Republican districts including the 7^th which Tom Barrett won last year by 3.7 percent. Donovan McKinney winning his primary in the 13^th isn't going to help the Democrats there. If the Justice Democrats were so focused on helping the party Kiros and McKinney would be running in one of the districts in play. That they're not makes it clear they have a different set of priorities then Hakeem Jeffries and the party.

Jeffries almost certainly knows this as does everybody in the Democratic leadership. I suspect that they've spent the last several election cycles regarding AOC and the Squad as a necessary evil, something that they hoped would help them retake Congress and the White House in the last four election cycles. Instead they have been far more trouble then they have been worth with AOC and Ilhan Omar increasingly becoming the Democratic equivalent of Marjorie Taylor Greene and Nancy Mace in previous cycles and Boebert and Paulina Luna today. Their behavior is just as performative, just as destructive to the Democrats as those in the Freedom Caucus have been to the Republicans and because they are in the bluest districts in the country, make it impossible for the party to do anything about them.

What makes this all the more frustrating is, like everything else with the left, the Justice Democrats are a paler and more ineffective imitation of the right. In five election cycles they haven't managed to accomplish what the Tea Party did in one – win control of the House of Representatives and take key positions in nearly every part of leadership, thus permanently shifting every aspect of the Republican Party from that point forward. Rashida Taib and Ilhan Ohmar have all the loudness and performances of those fire-throwers but lack the numbers to influence to overall direction of the party or the key positions in committees to change who leads. There's no one among the squad who has the power to overthrow Pelosi the same way that Kevin McCarthy, Paul Ryan and Eric Cantor managed to do to John Boehner when they took key positions after the 2012 election and they certainly don't have the raw numbers to lead the coup if they did – certainly not after this election and given their continued inability to recruit candidates in this cycle, certainly not for the foreseeable future.

And that's before you get to the fact that a full decade into their existence they still have no policy achievements to speak off either. That of course would require both houses of Congress and a Democratic President to be willing to go along with their agenda. Considering that their membership still ranks under a dozen as of the 2026 midterms and that the Democrats have only had both of these in the first two years of Biden's term the chances for that were slim and indeed none of their bills have gotten out of committee nor are they likely to for at least another two years at least. During Biden's administration the Squad was known far more for being obstructionists to Biden's agenda – which was of course too conservative for their liking – and many members of the Squad were more of a hindrance to him during his administration then a help. Jeffries is aware of this fact, something I remain skeptical that either Chevalier or any of the new Justice Democrats who will be joining Congress are aware of.

I don't deny that so many aspects of the Justice Democrats platforms as well as their rhetoric is troubling. But I also think that the media has bought into the image and vocals of what they are as opposed to what they actually are at least after eight years. The Justice Democrats are not a movement in the sense that other political movements like the Class of 1974 or the Blue Dog Democrats were for my party  or the Contract with America in 1994 or the Tea Party in 2010 were for Republicans. They are a fringe group who represent the far left of the several deep blue districts in Congress – and that's it. They still don't have any Senators or Governors who follow their platform and while Mamdani shares their sympathies he won without their endorsement in 2025 and he clearly doesn't need them. There are no Mamdani's anywhere else in the country in 2026 with this kind of power to move the meter this cycle and they may not show up for a while.

Considering their track record – which anyone who does a simple Google search can find out is far less impressive then it appears -  the Justice Democrats have to do a lot more for me to take them seriously. They will have to run candidates who can win races in swing districts and red ones. They'll have to win Senate races and governor races and its worth noting the Justice Democrats have not endorsed any candidates in either this cycle, not even Graham Platner in Maine. They'll have to do a recruitment drive and do better than fourteen candidates in eleven states – and to be clear that's their biggest field in six years. I'm understandably skeptical they can do that and honestly so should anyone with either a brain or can do basic math – which really does leave out candidates like Chevalier.

In the meantime like Jeffries I will be focused on seeing whether the Democrats can take back the House and the Senate, something that the Justice Democrats absolutely are not going to help them do this year. That's what most people should be focused on this year. If you think otherwise, well, you're not asking serious questions either.

 

Another Jeopardy Super-Champion in Season 42. Been There, Done That. How Adam Remsen Became the Super-Champion of the Month

 

 

We went through March and April of 2026 watching the incredible play of Jamie Ding as he became the fifth winningest Jeopardy player of all time in both games and money. May  barely began and Tristan Williams became the first player in Jeopardy history to win exactly ten games. Then followed Chris D'Angelo with 8 wins and Peter McFerrin with six.

And then not even a week after Peter was defeated comes the fourth super-champion of Season 42 so far: Adam Remsen. This is pretty fast, even compared to Season 38. There was a week between Mattea Roach losing and Ryan Long coming along.

Adam has not been quite as impressive as either Jamie or Harrison Whitaker in winning even though he ran away with six of his first ten victories. Indeed he reached Tristan's mark far more by luck then skill. He ran away with five of his first six games but only got Final Jeopardy correct in two of them. But then he found a groove and with his next four wins responded correctly in all four Final Jeopardys including the three where he was the only player to respond correctly and all of which were not runaways.

After he officially achieved super-champion status Thursday in what was by far his hardest fought victory against Kate Raven and Derek Lombardi (both of whom are likely to appear in the next Second Chance Tournament) Friday's match now had more importance. By matching Tristan Williams in victories if he were to win it would almost certainly grant him a bye into the semi-finals of the 2027 Tournament of Champions along with Jamie Ding and Harrison Whitaker. He'd won $228,806 in his ten wins to Tristan's $221,902 and while that extra $6900 or so might be enough to guarantee him that bye, the eleventh win would insure it.  In either case it was unprecedented territory for Jeopardy in this new era and I'm pretty sure the producers would have appreciated the cup being taken from their lips if they were forced to make a hard decision. (Unless of course after Adam lost someone else won eleven games or more in the interim which at this point no one – certainly not me -  can discount. But one super-champion at a time.)

Playing against Kristin Warner and Clay Stallworth on Friday it took a while to become clear that would happen. He got off to his usual fast start and at the end of the Jeopardy round he was in the lead with $8000 to Kristin's $3400 and Clay's $2400. But for Adam that was the norm. It wasn't until Double Jeopardy was underway that it was clear it would be Adam's finest hour so far.

He got the first three clues correct in Double Jeopardy before finding the first Daily Double in PLAYING THE DOZENS. He wagered $4000:

Hercules labor-ed at 12 tasks to atone for killing his family, an atrocity committed after this stepmother drove him insane."

There was a long pause. Finally Adam, in what he admitted later was a guess, said: "Who is Hera?" It paid off and he was at $16,000.

Four clues later he found the other Daily Double in BLANK VERSE. This time he bet $8000:

From 'Invictus', "I am the master of my fate, I am the 'blank-blank-blank-blank'. He figured this out quicker: "What is the captain of my soul?" And then he was at $24,800.

It wasn't quite over yet but when it was Adam had responded correctly to 32 clues including all three Daily Doubles to finish with $38,000 his most impressive runaway to date. All that remained to be seen was how high his final total would be.

The category was U.S. LANDMARKS. Norwegian Arne Petersen was the last to pass through this location which was then officially closed in 1954. Like his opponents Adam knew the correct response: "What is Ellis Island?" He bet $12,000 to finish with $50,000 on his eleventh victory and a new total of $278,806 in those eleven wins. The bye into the semi-finals was assured.

With Tristan's triumph Adam had officially entered super-champion status Thursday. But now that he is at a level that was the officially recognized standard before that, it's time to see where he stands compared to all those who've come before him.

In this case I think that should stand for just the post-Trebek era which by now is a more than big enough number. I will go backwards starting from all those who came before Adam and stop at Matt Amodio:

 

Adam Remsen: $278,806

Jamie Ding: $291,820

Harrison Whitaker: $309,000

Scott Riccardi: $282, 101

Adriana Harmeyer: $258,700

Ray LaLonde: $311,500

Cris Panullo: $356, 702

Ryan Long: $209,300

Mattea Roach: $244,882

Amy Schneider: $421,200

Jonathan Fisher: $246,100

Matt Amodio: $368,699

 

As you can see Adam's in the middle of the pack pretty much as the level of the last group of super-champs, not nearly at the level of the very best. This is true even if you were to go back to the era of Trebek. He's already won more money in his 11 games then Seth Wilson did in twelve but he's behind Arthur Chu after he got to eleven games.  And he has no realistic chance of getting to Matt Jackson or Austin Rogers' totals unless he manages to win at least another three or four games at this pace.

It took him until Friday to finally hit the $50,000 total in his biggest win. That's really not that shocking, even the greatest of greats have a lot of trouble reaching that figure. This was by far the biggest runaway victory Adam has managed and it’s the first one where he got Final Jeopardy correct with this big a wager involved. Most of his runaways haven't given him too much room to maneuver and in many of his wins where the game has been close he has even less. He has managed to get every single Final Jeopardy correct this week which is a huge improvement over his last week.

By and large Adam hasn't had a game as dominant as this before.  By and large he's managed somewhere between 20 and 25 correct answers in every game he's played to this point. He's also been lucky in most of his matches when his opponents find Daily Doubles and bet big they've gotten them wrong. He's found the majority of the Daily Doubles in the Jeopardy round but when he does they're almost too early to do him much good. This was true today when he found it on the first clue of the Jeopardy round; he found it on the second clue of that round yesterday.

How far Adam can go remains to be seen. Obviously the next point to measure how good he is will be if he manages to make it to the end of next week at which point he'll have won sixteen games, officially putting him in the top ten. In previous seasons the last weeks of the year have been a good time for super-champions: Adam began his run right around the time Adriana Harmeyer  did two years ago and roughly the same time last year Scott Riccardi began his run. It's pretty clear Adam is at their level in terms of skill.

When Adam's streak comes to an end I'll be back with the final ranking. Conversely if he's still around by Friday you can count on hearing from me during the long weekend. Either way I'll be back with more on the incredible 42^nd season of Jeopardy sooner rather than later.

 

 

My Predictions (And Hopes) For the 2026 Emmys, Week 2 Concluded: Outstanding Supporting Actress in A Drama

 

Same situation as with Supporting Actor: five of last year's nominees are ineligible and the two that remain almost certainly deserve to be here. As with the previous category I'm limiting my choices from The Pitt to two nominees even though I will be fine if more actresses from the cast are nomination.

Some of the nominees I have are from last year and I think the odds are better for at least one of them. So without further ado, here are my seven choices this year.

 

Taylor Dearden, The Pitt

I could just as easily have chosen Isa Briones, Fiona Dourif or any of last year's brilliant members of the staff from Season One to be among the nominees. And again I'll be fine if they're here. But I'm going with Taylor Dearden as Mel because perhaps more than any of the interns we met in the first season she represents the most complex changes.

Mel spends much of the shift worried about a deposition about a case from last season we remember and she spends most of the first half not getting support from anyone, certainly not Robby. After the deposition her sister ends up in the ER with a sexually transmitted disease and she's stunned, comically, that she's not only sexual active but has in many ways a better personal life then Mel does. She's the most understanding to Langdon when he returns and its clear there's still a bond – and who can forget the post-credits scene of the series when we see her singing karaoke with her frenemy for two years?

In addition Dearden happens to be the daughter of five time Emmy winner Bryan Cranston and she's clearly as gifted at mixing drama and comedy as her father is. And considering the father won another Emmy last year, why not have him be able to escort his daughter as a nominee in her own right?

Alison Janney, The Diplomat

Allison Janney was the biggest victim of the deluge of support for The White Lotus last year.  To that point she'd been nominated for a Critics Choice Award and a SAG-AFTRA award for her work as the embattled Vice President on The Diplomat – quite an impression for an actress who only appeared in two episodes last season.

Now as her character ascends to the Presidency we find her taking center stage against Kate who knows her secret and who says she'll protect it – despite what she said before the President died. Much of the third season was about a chess match between Grace and Kate as well as their respective husbands. When the season ended and a far worse secret was unfolded we now faced a scenario no one could expect.

Janney, of course, has already gotten more then her share of wins from the Emmys already and indeed she could end up managing a trifecta for her work in Palm Royale as well as in the TV Movie/Limited Series (I'll get to that eventually). So Janney doesn't need another nomination or Emmy but honestly, come on: wouldn't there be synchronicity in the actress who played CJ Cregg for seven years get a nomination for finally becoming the President?

 

Katherine LaNasa, The Pitt

It was a shock to everyone – including LaNasa – when she won in this category last year for her incredible work as charge nurse Dana Evans. And honestly after season one ended no one was sure we'd be seeing her back for Season 2.

Indeed Dana has returned but she's not handling her trauma any better than Robby is. She's punchier, with less patience for everyone then before, is less of a mama bear then a grizzly to the majority of the nurses and interns, seems less willing to take crap then she did in Season 1 (and she didn't take much then). Its clear she's angrier then before, basically at everybody and by the time the shift ends she shows in a fashion far more horrific then anything that Robby has done directly so far that leads to a knock-down drag out argument between the two in which both of them make it clear that they can't see the mote in their own eyes but are perfectly fine with the ones in everybody else. Still, by the end of the season its clear Dana's in a better place then Robby is – though that's not saying much.

LaNasa has slightly less of a chance of repeating in this category then Wyle does: she will doubtless be splitting votes with her co-stars on this show much the same way there was a similar split in The White Lotus last year. (Just because I'm only nominating two actress doesn't mean there won't be more.) Still no one can deny her power and that force and she will be in this category for years to come – assuming she survives each season.

 

Skye P. Marshall, Matlock

I'm pretty convinced the surplus of nominations that eliminated Janney as a nominee last year had an effect on Marshall's chances as well. She'd also been nominated for a Critics Choice Award and had been nominated for the Gotham TV Award in this category last year as well.  And let's not kid ourselves: Marshall's work as Olivia was the real story of Matlock.

It takes a great actress to hold the stage with one of the greatest actresses of all time. And yet in every scene they share Marshall makes it clear Olivia is as much a powerhouse as Bates's Madeline. This was even more true in Season 2 then Season 1 as the two former friends spent the first half of the season as reluctant allies, each maneuvering against each other, and as Olivia slowly revealed how badly the manipulations of Maddie had left emotional scars on her. Considering Olivia has always been a pawn in the manipulations of Senior and had no role in the conspiracy Maddie was investigating, the scars that she felt were genuine and her anger just as real as Madeline's.

Much of the pleasure of Season 2 was watching these two find a way to rebuild their friendship and find a way back to each other. (This is as much a love story for a drama today as that of Deb and Ava in Hacks.) As the conspiracy unfolded it became clear that Olivia wanted Maddie to be happy as much as she wanted to bring the law firm down and it was so much fun to see them get drunk in the season finale. And that the new series will deal with the two of them going forward together against the world is as much a joyful experience as anything I saw on TV last year.

Marshall may be more of an underdog in Season 2 then last year, as I said there a lot of good candidates. But I'd like to see her nominated among these incredible talents.

 

Julianne Nicholson, Paradise

It gave me immense pleasure to see Nicholson nominated for her work as Sinatra in Paradise last year and even more that she would be nominated – and win! – for her work as Dance Mom in Season 4 of Hacks. Nicholson has always been one of the most undervalued actresses in TV during the 21^st century but in this past decade the Emmys finally seemed to have realized what a force she is: I was overjoyed when she won for Mare of Easttown in 2021.

Her work as the hidden hand behind the bunker in Season 1 was an incredible performance: in large part because throughout you knew that Sinatra never really considered herself a villain. (It was a shock to learn that she had nothing to do with the murder of Cal Bradford.) But she proved that she could be just as ruthless as any man to protect what was hers – and while she managed to survive, she ended up being the victim of someone darker then her.

Throughout Season 2 Sinatra realizes that she no longer has control of events, that forces within the bunker are mounted against her on all sides and a force from without is coming. She spends much of the season arguing with herself – in the form of Cal – trying to make it clear she has a secret to play that might be a trump card. In the season finale as everything she's built has been destroyed she makes one last play for redemption before she chooses to sacrifice herself – and that will change the game for the final season.

Nicholson is near certain to repeat for this category though her chances for yet another Emmy remain remote. Perhaps there will be another chance in the final season. (Yes I know I said she's dead; do you really think we've seen the last of her?)

 

Cynthia Nixon, The Gilded Age

If Christine Baranski were competing in this category I'd be advocating for her. Since she isn't I'm going to give a chance for her sister to get recognition – which would be fitting consider not only who Ada is but the role she plays in Season 3.

For the first two seasons it was understandable that Nixon's work as Ada would be overlooked among the more obvious brilliance of Baranski and Coon. It's in large part to Nixon as a whole: Ada is a frail woman, always in the shadow of others, who only found love late in life and then had it taken away in a tragic fashion almost immediately. At the end of the season she found herself now in a position of wealth and power, so the question was how would she handle it?

The answer was, awkwardly. Nixon's made it clear that Ada was still carrying the trauma of losing someone she loved briefly but deeply and had no idea what to do with the wealth she'd been given or how to express it. The scene where she confessed that she was the head of a house that was falling apart was a standout as was the one where she shared just how badly she was broken and lost after everything. One could forgive for being manipulated by a spiritualist and one cheered as she found a way forward by choosing to support women's suffrage. When her sister let her take the head of the table for the first time, it was a triumph and moment of growth for both women, one I could cheer for.

Nixon is yet another actor whose politics and proselytizing I find repellent but whose work always has overshadowed it and that is very much the case for her work as Ada on one of my favorite shows.  I never have hate watched The Gilded Age and I love her work on this series. I hope, like in Season 3, Nixon gets a chance to shine.

 

Karolina Wydra, Pluribus

To say Karolina Wydra has a difficult job on Plur1bus is an understatement. She has to play Zosia, the representative of the hive mind to Carol Sturka, which means she's not so much an individual but someone whose pretending to be. She's only allowed one note in her performance, to be pleasant, cheerful and warm, even when she's telling Carol she killed over a million people with her anger. She has to do things that are ridiculous by standards, including taking a life grenade to Carol when she asks for it and throwing it out after Carol pulls out the pin – while saying "Sorry."  She has to be the representation of the fictional character that was the inspiration for Carol's best-selling novels, who happens to be a man in them. Then she has to find a way to convince Carol she's on her side, seem to fall in love with her, and seem to be a good person. She sometimes has long stretches with no dialogue. And she has to do almost every scene she's in with the force of nature that is Rhea Seehorn.

This is a task nearly as Herculean as Carol trying to save mankind. So it is a credit to the talent of the previously unknown Wydra that she's become nearly as plauded for her work as Zosia as Seehorn has. The nominations haven't quite some at the same level but they are there. Wydra did receive a  prize for her work at the Saturn's earlier this year and she was nominated by both the Gotham TV Awards and the Dorian TV awards (though oddly enough, not the Astras).And she absolutely deserves it. I always give extra credit for actors who are giving an extra layer of performance and Wydra's work covers it in spades. Wydra's work as Zosia is so complex that it may not even be clear to Zosia herself where she begins and the hive mind ends. It's difficult to be the mouthpiece of a species but she absolutely pulls it off. And as I said, even in those long silent passages of the show where she isn't saying a word, you can't take your eyes off her.

Wydra has the best chance of causing an upset against the forces of The Pitt this year. And either way I can't look away from her work any more than the Emmys can.

 

FOR YOUR CONSIDERATION

Madeline Stowe, Welcome To Derry

I did consider making Welcome to Derry the series for consideration for Best Drama instead of The Audacity and I do think its worthy. And to be clear there are many performances in the entire cast I think that are worthy of nomination. But the one I'm pushing for the most in Madeline Story as Mrs. Kersh.

Here are my reasons. First her character is essential to the canon of the series and it wouldn't shock me if she's the link that draws all three seasons together: we've seen some version of her in every season that's happened already, either as a child or an adult. Second there's the fact that while she is in many ways an acolyte of IT in a way IT's used so many over their time in Derry she's just as much a victim of it as the children and grownups Pennywise kills. As we saw in the penultimate episode she lost her father Bob Gray as a child and has spent her entire life just wanting to see him again – and as we see after the Black Spot, IT disposes of her without a second thought and sends her to a fate worse than death.

And lastly is the superb, ethereal performance of Stowe throughout the show: she's clearly a victim at every stage but also a monster and at every level you see the human being behind every action. By the time the season ended I felt genuine sadness for Stowe's character even though, if you think about it, she realized her heart's desire. Combined with the fact that Stowe is criminally underrecognized for awards her entire career I'm pushing for her. (Who knows? We'll probably see her next season.)

That's it for drama. Next week I wrap it up with Best Limited Series. This category has no real favorites across the board. Should be fun.