Do Media Scandals Change The Minds Of People Voting for President Before 2016? Part 1:Six Times When Huge Scandals Did Not Stop the Electorate from Making Candidates President

 

So many times in the past decade when I was watching CNN or MSNBC or read any major newspaper online or in hard copy, I heard the word 'unprecedented' in regard to Donald Trump. Perhaps most often every time he ran for the Presidency that word was used into the way the media couldn't comprehend how his morally repugnant actions as well as all of the scandals that were in regard to him did nothing to shake how his voters continued to support him. I kept hearing some version of how 'in old days this-and-this would have doomed him with the electorate.'

I admit that was shocking to me at the time. But the more I look at the history of Presidential elections both in the long view and comparatively recently I increasingly wonder if that particular part was ever true. And the more I look at it I think the idea that scandals that were big deals in the media ending Presidential candidacies is, well it has to be said, a creation of the media.

Part of me wonders if the reporters were so shocked by what they were seeing that they stopped doing their homework or if they decided to pick and choose the elements that they reported to their viewers and readers. Because the hard truth of the matter is that in the 200 years since the Presidency was chosen by popular vote there has always been a disconnect between whether scandals – be they moral, financial or even downright criminal – has altered the opinion of the electorate when it comes to voting for President. It may be taken to its most extreme version in the last decade but that doesn't mean its unprecedented.

To be clear I'm not denying that scandals have done their part to end the political life of state and local officials so many times over the history of the Republic. I am saying that there has always been a disconnect between a candidate's behavior and whether the voters are so devoted to what he represents (it is he in the case of the Presidency) that they will still vote for him regardless of anything he's done.

The most extreme example in the 20^th century was the case of the Socialist Candidate for President Eugene V. Debs.  Debs ran as a third party candidate on the Socialist Party ticket five times between 1900 and 1920. It's that last run I want to focus one for reasons that will become clear immediately.

During World War I many socialist leaders were arrested under the Sedition Act for being against fighting in the war. He was tried and convicted and was sentenced to ten years in prison. Despite that fact the Socialist Party nominated him for President at their annual convention in May of 1920. Many believed that this was rally the cause in America which was beginning to flag in the aftermath of the Soviet Union's formation. In accepting the speech Debs went out of his way to say he was in favor of the Russian Revolution. Debs and the party thought this would lead to the incumbent Woodrow Wilson pardoning him. Wilson, who had always been a petty man before the failure of Congress to accept the League of Nations, made it clear he considered Debs a traitor and that he would never do so.

Despite this the Socialist Party chose to keep Debs as their candidate anyway. Campaign literature proudly referred to him as 'Prisoner No. 9653'. It's worth noting the Socialist Party, which had elected multiple candidates across the country during the first two decades of the century was wrenched by internal division. Debs received over 919,799 votes that November, which represented little more than 3 percent of the total but still the highest number of votes Debs ever received when running for President. It was a protest vote but the fact remained just under a million voters were willing to vote for a man who couldn't serve in the White House even had he been elected.

That faithfulness is at least part of the reason I was always skeptical of the idea that even had Trump been convicted it would diminish his following among his followers.  Debs was always a fringe candidate and Trump, despite everything the media wants to say, never was.

This case, however, is not one I wish to highlight because it is a fringe movement. There were six other Presidential candidates of the two major parties who in the 19^th and well into the end of the last century all dealt with the kinds of scandals that were so controversial at the time in many cases they should have cost the candidate the White House. Not only didn't they but in many cases the electorate couldn't have made it clearer that they cared less about what the media told them even when it was true.

 

1872: Grant runs for reelection

 

By 1871, a new term had entered the political lexicon: ‘Grantism’. It was not a compliment. Grant’s administration had the reputation of being notoriously corrupt, even though Grant himself was honest. This was not necessarily on Grant: American politics in the 1870s and 1880s was notoriously corrupt as the robber barons and big business began to take a hold in every aspect of politics as every level. But Grant seemed particularly incompetent when it came to choosing who advised him: at the position of Attorney General alone, five men would hold the office due to multiple resignation from scandals. Grant was also perceived as incompetent as leader, and rumors about his drinking in the Oval Office were rampant even by his allies.

Nevertheless the Republicans nominated Grant for President in 1872 by acclimation. His Vice President Schuyler Colfax had been forced to step down because of a corruption scandal and they named Henry Wilson his Vice President this time.

Grant should have been easy picking for a good candidate. Fortunately his opponent was Horace Greeley, the nominee of the Liberal Republicans and the Democrats. The kindest thing one could say about Greeley was that he was a national celebrity. As a publisher he had the reputation of a busybody who had been a gadfly in politicians ears (Lincoln had loathed him) He was personally unctuous, had been known to embrace causes such as vegetarianism that were outside the societal norm and had isolated many of his supporters when he had posted bail for Jefferson Davis when the former President of the Confederacy was being tried for treason. Worst of all, Greeley had spent almost his entire career in journalism attacking everything the Democratic Party stood for, especially in the Northeast.

. Grant’s administration was deeply flawed and easy to campaign against, but with Greeley as his opponent, he was unbeatable. The result was a disaster both for the Liberal Republicans and Greeley personally. Grant won in a landslide carrying 30 states and 286 electoral votes. Not long after the election Greeley’s wife died, he was institutionalized and he died on November 29^th 1872, less than a month after election day.

If anything Grant’s second term was worse than his first. A national depression hit the country in 1873 and a veto of what was a version of a stimulus bill caused the Republicans to lose the house in 1874, giving the Democrats control for the first time since the before the War. The Whiskey Ring did much to hurt his cabinet and his Secretary of Ware was discovered to be guilty of taking kickbacks and was impeached by the Houses. Grants own brother was indicted in a corruption scandal. Despite all of that, Grant considered running for an unprecedented third term, but the scandals were so great he decided against running. That year. Four years later he threw his hat back in the ring for a third term. It was a battle between Grant and James G. Blaine (we'll get back to him later) and eventually the Republican delegates turned to…

 

 

1880: James Garfield and Credit Mobilier

 

James Garfield had been a dark horse candidate (he'd actually declined the nomination the first time it was offered) but many thought he was the hope of the party. He did, however, have one big mark against him.

When the Transcontinental Railroad was being built one of the companies involved was known as Credit Mobilier. Its founders had created it to believe that is was responsible for constructing the railroad, not operating it. It was a sham company to charge the government extortionate fees and expenses during the construction. The scheme most operated through fraudulent accounting practices. In order to gain influence multiple Congressional members were bribed with cash and stock in exchange for votes favorable to the company. (You have to love the Gilded Age. These days it would just be campaign contributions to a PAC.)

The scandal broke just prior to the 1872 election. Multiple Congressmen were named, including Colfax and Wilson. Garfield had been among those allegedly offered stock or profits but he testified that he had not been offered any. This didn't stop Democrats attacking Garfield for being corrupt (there's evidence that his account of dealings was less than honest) as opposed to Hancock who was a bastion of integrity. Indeed the Republicans were reluctant to criticize the man considered the hero of Gettysburg.

It turned out to be the closest election in the popular vote in history: Garfield defeated Hancock by less then 2000 votes out of over nine million cast. Over 80 percent of eligible voters participated the highest turnout in American history. The Electoral College vote was more decisive. Each man carried 19 states but Garfield's triumphs in the North gave him 214 electoral votes to Hancock's 155.

 

 

 

 

1884: Ma, Ma Where's My Pa?

In my opinion few things demonstrate the more repressed nature of the American people then the 'Scandal' that rocked Grover Cleveland's first run for the Presidency in 1884.

Cleveland was a bachelor when he ran for office the first time. During the 1870s he'd had a relationship with a widow named Maria Halpin. In July of 1884 a minister argued that Cleveland had father an illegitimate child when he was an attorney in Buffalo.

Cleveland immediately told his supporters: "Above all, tell the truth." He admitted he had paid some child support to the woman who claimed to father the child but the paternity was uncertain.

The Republicans showing the same high standards they too often do today published an affidavit that she had been practically a virgin; Cleveland was the father of her child and that she'd been institutionalized. (Halpin was impossible to locate so the truth is still uncertain.) The campaign again used perfect candor, saying that Cleveland had had an 'illicit connection' with Halpin, there was a child but there was no proof he was the father, and all he done was his moral duty.

Just to be clear Grover Cleveland, a bachelor, had sex with a widow and might have fathered a child with her. If you think that Republicans are always obsessed with what goes on our bedrooms, this might be where it starts. Indeed Blaine's supporters would condemn Cleveland's campaign with the chant: "Ma, Ma, Where's my Pa?"

The thing is the man run against Cleveland James G. Blaine was far from morally spotless. (We'll deal with him in the next article in the series.) And his moral corruption bother voters far more than Cleveland private affairs.

It was nearly as close an election as four years earlier, even in the electoral college. But Cleveland prevailed with 219 electoral votes to Blaine's 182. And as a result after he won his supporters now had an answer to the Republicans chant: "Gone to the White House, Ha, Ha, Ha."

 

1920: The First of the Second-Raters Wasn't Even That

As a historian I try to be objective. But looking back on it the 1920 election is one of those where I can't help look at the American electorate and say: "Guys, you really let us down."

Warren Harding's own campaign manager advocated for him by saying: "There are no first-raters this year and Harding's the best of the second-raters."  That's not a ringing endorsement from the man who knew him best. Harding had multiple affairs, one of which was statutory rape that he only got away with due to bribing a hotelier. He fathered a child with her and by the time he had been nominated for President the RNC sent her on a goodwill tour of China. That was just the most well-known of his affairs; there were at last several others and quite a few pregnancies and abortions.  There was also the problem that many suspected he had 'Negro blood' – in the era of the KKK that was tantamount to a vote-killer. In addition to everything else he had a bad heart and blood pressure even before he starting running in 1919. His own wife didn't think he'd survive his term – an accurate prophecy.

And on the campaign trail he was often boring and mangled words so badly that H.L. Mencken coined the term 'Gamilielese' to refer to it.

And the electorate responding by giving Harding the biggest electoral landslide to that point in American history. He was the first candidate to receive 60 percent of the popular vote and he crushed his opponent James W. Cox by a margin of nearly 2-1. He won by 7 million votes the largest plurality to that point in history. Joe Tumulty the head of the DNC said: "It wasn't a landslide; it was an earthquake.

Much of what Harding did, to be fair, was unknown at the time and much of the worst parts could be found in the future. Still its striking that the Presidential candidate who to that point in history was the most unfaithful in private life (there were far more to be found in the decades to come) was elected by the largest margin in American history to that point.

It must be admitted much of it has to due with the times: by 1919 America was so sick of all things Woodrow Wilson any Republican would have probably swept the victory. But even by the terms of the second raters that were eligible by any measure Harding was fourth-rate at best even before he took office. Afterwards it got worse for him and the country.

 

 

1972: They Knew About Watergate. Nixon won anyway

This one is going to get the most pushback considering that Watergate did bring down Richard Nixon. But the thing is it only happened after two years of ruthless investigation. The thing is Theodore White devotes an entire chapter to in his 1972 Making of the President series. He reminds us the burglary did take place in July of that year and that during the fall of that year both the press and the McGovern campaign tried to make as much a deal of it is possible. However:

By early October, reported the Gallup poll, 52 percent of the public had read or heard about the Watergate affair but four out of five thought it was not a reason to vote for George McGovern. On October 19^th, the Harris Poll said that 76 percent of those polled had heard something about it  - and 62 percent of all those polled dismissed the matter as 'just politics'.

White makes an argument that hearing about Watergate was a factor in many Americans not going to the polls go all together. He also points out that of the 42 states that offered a vote for a statewide race (Senator or Governor) in fully nineteen of them in those races ran ahead of the candidates in both parties. In 23 of the states of the union despite the passage of the 26^TH Amendment enfranchises 18-21 year olds, the total vote for President was less then it had been four years earlier.

But even allowing for that factor White sees no scenario where McGovern  - or for that matter, any Democrat – could have beaten Richard Nixon that year. That is the dual tragedy of the Watergate affair. It's not just that it was unnecessary for the purposes of Nixon's victory; it's that there was clearly awareness of it at the time – and rather then encourage the voters to go for McGovern en mass they thought he was so incompetent that they decided not to vote at all.

White acknowledges that point: "The after-myth of a contrived or rigged election cannot change (the facts). Americans were giving an open choice of ideas, a free choice of direction and they chose Richard Nixon." Even Woodward and Bernstein knew it was a fait accompli. In a section of the book that is forgotten both men are present when a pool is going at the Washington Post as to who's going to win. Both men are sure Nixon will win in a landslide Both men have a clear idea of what Watergate means and neither believe it will change the electorate's difference one bit. As indeed it didn't. Nixon won forty-nine of fifty states, 520 electoral votes and 60.7 percent of the popular vote.

 Millions of Americans had agreed that 'Nixon's The One." Within a matter of months many regretted their decision

 

1992: The Comeback Kid

Bill Clinton is the only candidate here that falls under a different standard, mainly because in the era of post-Watergate the media had engaged in the kind of over-policing that had done much to wreck the candidacies of so many men. (Even then there were limits to it; they never got anywhere with Ronald Reagan.) Four years earlier Joe Biden had decided to quit the race for the Democratic nomination because of a bizarre plagiarism scandal that even the media admitted was the definition of trivial. (Short term, it saved his life; long-term it did nothing to stop his presidential prospects.)

Bill Clinton had been the kind of candidate who had minor flaws, any one of which had brought other contenders to ruin. He'd bobbled an issue of smoking pot or whether he'd dodged the draft. But the biggest scandal which developed in the weeks prior to the New Hampshire primary was his reported affair with Gennifer Flowers. Five years earlier a reported infidelity had forced Gary Hart to end his candidacy and there was no reason to expect that Clinton would face any more of a rejection.

And yet in the New Hampshire primary he managed to finish in a respectable second place to Paul Tsongas. He would face his share of challenges the rest of the way but eventually Clinton would earn the Democratic nomination and win the White House, eventually becoming the first Democrat to win reelection in his own right since FDR. He never truly escaped the 'Slick Willy' moniker but when he left the White House he was still incredibly popular with the electorate.

 

Now I need to be clear about what I'm saying and what I'm not saying.

I'm not saying that the voters made the right choice in each of these elections. Grant, Harding and Nixon rank on any historians list of the five worst Presidents of all time. The fact that all three men won elected office by (in successive order) the biggest electoral margins of any Republican President to that time has to rank as some of the poorest decisions the American voter ever made.

And it is not as though that these scandals were the only factor causing people to vote for the winner.  Horace Greeley and George McGovern ran two of the most poorly run campaigns for the White House in the long history of the electorate. And as I'll write about in the next series of articles James G. Blaine, who ran against Cleveland, had far more serious scandals that were public then Cleveland had and may have fallen victim to the first October surprise.

But the historical and electoral record are very clear. All six candidates running for President had scandals that involved the two biggest problems: corruption and sexual infidelity. The public was very aware of them at the time they happened. And despite all the media's efforts to make it clear how genuinely flawed these men were, the electorate sent a very different message: its not enough to stop us from voting for them.

Now if you are the kind of person who wrings their hands about the purported intelligence of the electorate every time they choose a candidate for elected office that is at best intellectually lacking and at worst morally corrupt this will no doubt confirm your worst feeling about the voters. Or if you wanted to look at it a different way, you could argue the electorate is far less susceptible to being brainwashed by any media and will make up its own mind, regardless of what the bigger forces think.

The reason I come away with the latter feeling is because of one election that doesn't fall under the mantle of what I said: FDR's first reelection in 1936. By that point it was the decision of the very conservative media that Roosevelt was a dangerous man running roughshod over the Constitution and 'a traitor to his class'. Most of the media was under the control of men like William Randolph Hearst and Henry Luce as well as other conglomerates. According to the historical records, fully two-thirds of all publications endorsed the Republican candidate for President Alf Landon.

The night of FDR's historic landslide, in which he broke all records by carrying more than 60 percent of the vote and 46 of 48 states, two of Hearst's son came into a New York nightclub hoping to drown their sorrows and not to be recognized. A twenty year old master of ceremonies named Jackie Gleason recognized them instantly as they came in.

Without missing a beat he said: "Ah here come Maine and Vermont!"

Hearst was very much the Rupert Murdoch of his day and had done everything in his power to put a Republican in the White House.

He made his message clear. The people, as is always the way, sent their own.

 

Emmy Watch 2026 Phase 2: My Reactions to the 2026 Saturn TV Nominations

 

The Saturn Awards, which honor the best achievements in science fiction in film and TV have existed since 1972 and have been expanding ever since. That is particularly in television where they gave a basic set of awards in the 1990s.

This made sense because sci-fi has basically been on the fringe elements of TV even starting in the 1990s. It has been front and center of Peak TV almost since Saturn started giving nominations in this category. Buffy the Vampire Slayer debuted in 1997 and slowly but surely a group of great genre dramas have filled the contours. Some, like Lost and Game of Thrones the Emmys worshipped, others like Battlestar Galactica and Smallville they all but ignored.

Now if it were merely to look at this as an alternative to the Emmys the Saturn's would be interesting enough. But as anyone whose paid attention to the Emmy nominations in the past decade sci-fi and alternative history has essentially become mainstream. Every year for the last decade at least two of the nominees for Drama have been some form of sci-fi or fantasy and they've been winning awards that go outside the technical. I'm not just talking about Game of Thrones but Westworld and The Handmaid's Tale, The Mandalorian and Stranger Things.

During the 2023 Emmys sci-fi and genre TV were dominant in a way unthinkable years ago: no less than four of the nominees for Best Drama had some kind of genre link to them. Alphabetically they were the first seasons of Andor, The Last of Us, House of the Dragon and Season 2 of Yellowjackets.  Combined with Wednesday's nomination for Best Comedy and Obi-Wan Kenobi being nominated for Best Limited Series genre TV had never had such a showing before. This past year alone we saw a similar presence with the second season of Andor, The Last of Us and Severance being among the biggest nominees and winners at the Emmys.

So with genre TV being bigger in prestige television then at any point in the history of the medium looking at the Saturn nominations could very well give the astute critic hints at what the Emmys might do in a few months' time. To be sure none of the series I've listed will be eligible this year but the final season of Stranger Things and the new season of Fallout will be and both have done superbly at the Emmy nominations in year's past. Those who chose to overlook the nominations could very well do so at their own peril. (They might also give look to the Oscars this year, too, but one award show at  a time.)

So let's go through it.

 

BEST SCIENCE FICTION TELEVISION SERIES.

Andor and Severance have already contended for Emmys this past year. It's unlikely any of the nominees in this particular category should or will, despite some of them being superb shows such as Foundation and Silo. Strange New Worlds and The Ark have little chance.

 

BEST FANTASY TELEVISION SERIES

The final season of Stranger Things might very well contend for Emmys and considering how well it did for its first season the second season of Wednesday will likely be a major contender.

Ghosts has done remarkably well in achieving nominations and awards from other critics groups except the Emmys. Outlander has never been able to crack the Emmy barrier despite doing well with almost every other major awards show, from the Golden Globes to the Astras. Mayfair Witches and The Librarians have no chance.

 

BEST HORROR TV SERIES

The Last of Us did contend and you'll get no argument from me Yellowjackets should have.  I would be perfectly fine if Welcome to Derry got some nominations; I'm less sure about The Institute. Talamasca and The Walking Dead have no chance.

 

BEST NEW GENRE TV SERIES

Pluribus is almost certainly going to be a front runner for most major awards this season and Alien: Earth was nominated for Best Drama by the Critics' Choice Awards.

Skeleton Crew has no chance and the biggest from with House of Ashur, Blood of My Blood and Robin Hood is less their genre then their networks – the Emmys hasn't shown much love to Starz or MGM+ in my lifetime which is their mistake.

 

BEST ACTION ADVENTURE SERIES

Season 1 of Paradise was nominated for Emmys this past year and very well might contend for Emmys this year. Squid Game's high point came in Season 1 and with one exception the Emms never showed much love for Cobra Kai.  Duster has already been cancelled and Twisted Metal and Reacher aren't the kinds of shows the Emmys likes.

 

BEST THRILLER TV

The Lowdown absolutely should contend for nominations and I've been saying the Emmys should nominate Dark Winds for at least two years.

Honestly the Emmys  could do worse with the majority of the nominees in this category. Whether its Dexter: Resurrection, Mobland, The Rainmaker and Your Friends and Neighbors.

 

BEST SUPERHERO TV SERIES

Don't kid yourself; The Sandman is irrevocably tainted for obvious reasons.

Many of these shows have contended for other awards in the past year. I've seen Peacemaker, Daredevil Born Again, Gen V and Iron Heart all contend for awards from multiple critics groups. Realistically the only show that has a chance is Invincible and that's because it's animated.

 

BEST TV PRESENTATION OR LIMITED SERIES

This seems almost to deal with 'miscellaneous'. The Pitt is going to contend, obviously. Black Mirror already did and The Beast in Me will. Murderbot did get a nomination for Alexander Skarsgard, so it can't be taken for granted. Sorry AMC, no chance for Nautilus or Daryl Dixon.

 

ANIMATED TV SERIES

I can't foresee what the Emmys will do here so I'll leave it be. For what its worth Harley Quinn has been a big winner over the years.

 

BEST ACTOR IN A TV SERIES

Adam Scott and Sterling K. Brown were nominated last year and Brown might be again. Diego Luna probably should have been nominated for an Emmy last year.

Michael C. Hall has been nominated for five Emmys for Dexter so he could very well contend this year. He has yet to win in this category. Sam Heughan has no realistic chance for Outlander and no one is taking John Cena or Norman Reedus seriously. Sorry.

 

BEST ACTRESS IN A TV SERIES.

Britt Lower won the Emmy this year. Rhea Seehorn is currently the front runner for the Emmy this year for Pluribus. Jenna Ortega is almost certainly going to be nominated again for Wednesday. Millie Bobby Brown has gotten nominated for – and honestly should have won at least once – for Stranger Things can't rule it out.

Catriona Balfe has gotten nominations from everybody but the Emmys and sadly I don't see that changing. Melissa McBride has gotten some nominations for Walking Dead from some critics groups but I don't think the Emmys takes the show seriously.  Sydney Chandler might be a dark horse for Alien: Earth.

 

BEST SUPPORTING ACTOR IN A TV SERIES

James Marsden was nominated for an Emmy and Stellan Skarsgard absolutely should have been for Andor. All the others theoretically could be considered.

Babou Cessay has the most realistic chance for Alien: Earth. The rest of the nominees all have increasingly unlikely chances.  I love William Fichtner but the Emmys never recognize him for anything, ditto Jude Law. Jack Alcott's work in Resurrection was  a massive improvement from New Blood but will it be enough? I don't know enough about Strange New Worlds to theorize.

 

BEST SUPPORTING ACTRESS IN A TV SERIES

A mirror of last year's Emmys. Julianne Nicholson was deservedly nominated for Paradise and Genevieve O'Reilly should have been for Andor. (I'm less sure about Denise Gough.)

Karolina Wydra will almost certainly be  a contender for her work in Pluribus and personally I'd love to see Uma Thurman nominated for Resurrection. Jennifer Holland and Christina Chong have no real chance

 

BEST GUEST STAR

Speaking for myself I'd love to see either Peter Dinklage or Dave Dastmalchian nominated for Resurrection. (Dastmalchian played Gemini, so that took work.) James Remar was recognized for Welcome to Derry which is the correct show and its going to be a Skarsgard family reunion as Bill is nominated for Welcome to Derry. Samba Schutte might get nominated for Pluribus and we all want Linda Hamilton to get nominated for something.

 

BEST YOUNGER PERFORMER IN A TV SERIES

I have zero trouble with either of the nominees for Welcome To Derry, love that Joe Freeman was nominated for The Institute and am glad that Noah Schnapp and Sadie Sink were nominated for the final season of Stranger Things.  Am I disappointed that nominees from Skeleton Crew and Gen V are here instead of any of the wonderful girls from Yellowjackets?  Honestly many of them may be too old to contend by now.

 

When the awards are given I will check in on the winners because in this case I'll be curious if the acting ones follow a similar or superior path when it comes to last year.  That aside I'm genuinely impressed with the caliber of the majority of the nominees in every category, including acting.  Many of these series will contend in the months to come and many of them should contend across the board.

Put another way I have fewer notes for this group then I did the Golden Globes this past year. And even though it’s a different kind of nominees, considering what I think of their history with TV that's saying a lot for me.

I'll see you later this month with my predictions for the SAG-AFTRA TV Awards.

Edward Brooke: A Groundbreaking Politician Who Doesn't Fit Easily in Any Box

 

In a complicated world it is tempting to look at history and find narratives that, if read a certain way, make the path to today's present seem inevitable. This is particularly tempting when it comes to the political situation in America when both sides and every ideology cherry picks our history to fit a certain narrative.

But history has never worked that way and what seems inevitable in hindsight would strikes those who lived through as ridiculous at the time. Take the narrative of the 1964 presidential election. With the benefit of more than sixty years both sides will argue that their respective political party's makeup was set in stone because of events in that fateful year. Those on the far left will argue that it was the passage of the Civil Rights Act that handed the South to the Republican Party.  Those on the right will hail Goldwater for being the bulwark for conservative politics and led the path to the conservative revolution which found its fruition in the Reagan landslide in 1980.

The problem is this narrative goes against what both sides took away from while that election was going on and in its immediate aftermath.  Indeed Goldwater himself never thought he had a chance of winning and knew from the moment he clinched the nomination that his campaign was going to end in disaster.  Indeed Goldwater had every reason to assume it would end his political life because he was up for reelection in the Senate that year and chose to commit to the campaign and run for President instead.  When he lost in the biggest electoral defeat for any candidate to that point in the popular vote. LBJ had gotten 61 percent to Goldwater's 37 percent, a margin of over 16 million votes.  That the Republicans had done extremely well in the South was cold comfort to a party that had been swamped in the seven other major geographic regions of the country, particularly considering Nixon had won 26 states four years earlier to Goldwater's 6 in 1964.

The Republican Party was almost relieved by the majority of the defeat: Clifton White and his conservative mentors had led what was essentially a coup over the traditional leadership to earn Goldwater the nomination. Now that he had been obliterated whatever momentum Goldwater had in the party since 1960 had been squashed flat and the party would move forward from the state and city Republicans as opposed to the Congressional ones. In what was a foreshadowing of things to come Theodore White said that there was a difference in the cleavage between these groups: "Republican governors know that government is necessary and Congressional Republicans think strong government is bad." Even after Reagan came along two years this belief would hold until at least the end of the 20^th century.

And among the many tactical mistakes Goldwater had made was one his fellow Senators had objected to the post.  Minority Leader Everett Dirksen had been integral to Senate Republicans breaking the filibuster of Southern Democrats and ultimately leading the passage of the Civil Rights Bill of 1964. Only seven Republican Senators had voted against it – and one of them had been Goldwater. Dirksen, who had conservative values not out of line with Goldwater, had urged his colleague to vote for it because he knew that by voting against it would guarantee the Republicans would lose the notable gains they had been making among African-American voters in Eisenhower and Nixon's runs for the White House. But Goldwater had stood by his principles – and as a result Goldwater received only 6 percent of the African-American vote.

So in the aftermath of the disaster of 1964 the Republicans were planning to go back to the center. They could not have foreseen how the riots that would follow in the next few years – most notably in Watts – were going to fuel the 'backlash' movement that Goldwater had started. There were signs of it in the next midterms as Republican Governors won deeply Democratic states – not just Reagan in California but Spiro Agnew in Maryland and Winthrop Rockefeller in Arkansas – but it was yet unclear if that narrative would hold true in Congress where the bigger issue was the increasing disaster the Vietnam War was becoming. And while Strom Thurmond had managed to win election to the Senate having changed parties another candidates election gave a different narrative to where the Republican Party might go.

Edward William Brooke III was born in D.C to a middle-class black family. Raised in a racially segregated environment Brooke would rarely interact with the white community. After graduating from Howard University he would enlist in the Army after Pearl Harbor. He would see combat in Italy and his fluent Italian and light skin would help him cross enemy lines to communicate with Italian partisans. He would also meet his future wife Remigia Ferrari-Scacco in Italy.

Exposed to the inequality and racism in the army and combined with FDR's decision to order Japanese-Americans interned during the duration, he began to rethink his support of him. He would eventually achieve the rank of captain and receive the Bronze star and a Distinguished Service Award.

In 1950 he entered politics for the first time when he ran for a seat in the Massachusetts House of Representatives. At the time he affiliated with neither party and chose to run in both primaries. He won the Republican nomination but lost in the general to a Democrat opponent and would lose again 2 years later. In 1960 he ran for secretary of the Commonwealth and won the Republican nomination. However he lost to the future Mayor of Boston Kevin White. The campaign issued a bumper sticker 'Vote White', which many took as a reference to his race. Despite the race's closeness Republican Governor John Volpe offered him a number of jobs. Brooke eventually accepted a position on the Boston Finance Commission. He would then run for State Attorney General and win in 1962, the first African-American of either party to win that office at a state level.

When Goldwater was nominated for President Brooke found his nomination offensive and publicly broke with it, imploring his fellow Republicans "not to invest in the pseudo-conservatism of zealots." While Goldwater lost Massachusetts in a landslide (he received just 23.4 percent of the vote) Brooke would win reelection to his office by nearly 800,000 votes. By 1965 Brooke had emerged as the main Republican spokesman for racial equality.

In 1966 he would run against former Governor Endicott Peabody for the Senate Seat that the Republicans had held in that state, defeating him by nearly half a million votes. As Time wrote the black vote had 'no measurable bearing on the election as less then 3 percent of the vote was black and both Peabody and Brooke were pro-civil rights. Brooke condemned both Stokely Carmichael and Georgia's Lester Maddox as extremists. He was the first African-American since Reconstruction to be elected to the Senate and the first one ever elected by popular vote.

Brooke would later say that "In all my years at the Senate, I never encountered an overt act of bigotry." He recalled visited the swimming pool in the Senate Office building where Thurmond and fellow segregationist senators John McLellan of Arkansas and John Stennis of Mississippi invited him to join him in the pool 'without hesitation or ill will. These were men who consistently voted against legislation that would have provided equal opportunity to others of my race…it was increasingly evident that some members of the Senate played on bigotry purely for political gain."

Romney was a member of the moderate to the liberal Northeastern wing of the part and would organize  'the Wednesday club' of progressive Republicans for strategy sessions. He supported first George Romney of Michigan and Nelson Rockefeller's bid for the Presidential nomination against Richard Nixon, mainly because he frequently differed with the future President on matters of social policy and civil rights. When he visited Vietnam he broke with his party in arguing that negotiations rather than escalation were necessary.

By his second year in the Senate Brooke took his place as an advocate against discrimination in Housing and affordable housing. He would work with Walter Mondale to co-author the 1968 Fair House Act which would create HUD's Office of Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity. LBJ would sign the Fair Housing Act into law on April 11^th, one week after the assassination of Martin Luther King. He would also be the father of the Brooke Amendment to the assisting housing program which limited the tenants out-of-pocket rent expenditure to 25 percent of the income. Furthermore he would vote to confirm Thurgood Marshall to the Supreme court. During Nixon's administration he would consistently oppose the attempts to close down foundational element of Johnson's Great Society program.

In 1969 Brokke spoke at Wellesley College commencement against 'coercive protest, calling some students 'elite ne-er do well's." The student body president Hilary Rodham would depart from her planned speech to rebut Brooke's words, affirming the 'indispensable task of criticizing constructive protest.""

Brooke would vote to confirm many of Richard Nixon's nominees to the Supreme Court, including Chief Justice Warren Burger, Harry Blackmun and Lewis Powell. But he also helped lead Republican opposition of Clement Haynsworth and Harrold Carswell to the bench and voted against Rehnquist's nomination as associate justice. Despite his opposition to many positions Nixon took Brooke respected him. He'd offered to name him to cabinet of ambassador when he was elected and was speculated as a possible replacement for Spiro Agnew during the lead-up to the 1972 election. That year Brooke won reelection in landslide over Democrat John J. Droney. Considering that Nixon's 49 state landslide nevertheless resulted in the Democrats gaining two seats in the Senate the fact that Brooke won by nearly thirty percent in the only state George McGovern would carry was one of the few highpoints for Senate Republicans that year.

Brooke then became the first Republican to call on Nixon resign immediately after the so-called Saturday Night Massacre, actually going so far as to recommend it to the President one week after words. By this point he was the ranking Republican on the Senate Banking Committee and on Appropriations.  He was responsible for vital legislation during that decade, including enactment of the E      qual Credit Opportunity Act and leading the fight to retain title IX.

In 1975 the extension of the Voting Rights Act was at state, Brooke would face John Stennis is extended debate and it was in large part due to that it won extension to the first time. In 1976 he would also take on support for wide-scale legalized abortion. This led to a battle by the Anti-Abortion crusade and would weaken his support among Catholics vital in a state like Massachusetts. Despite speculation that Gerald Ford might consider him as a running mate Ford chose Robert Dole. This decision ended up costing him his Senate seat as he would be defeated by Paul Tsongas in 1978, one of the few Democratic gains during that year's midterms. Brooke would be the longest serving African-American Senator in history until Cory Booker surpassed his tenure in 2025.

Brooke's accomplishments are as groundbreaking in political history as Adam Clayton Powell in the House, Douglas Wilder would be for governors and would lead to Barack Obama's election. (Brooke would endorse him in 2008). Yet only ten years after he passed away he has become nearly forgotten by every aspect of his career, be it the GOP or Congress. And while African-Americans have spent so much of the last decade seemingly drawing attention to every single African-American who accomplished something, no matter how obscure,  I have yet to see any articles highlighting his achievements which were far more substantial and important then even I thought when I began to write this article. One suspects the reasons for this is because in the binary view of the world that so much of America holds Brooke throws a huge wrench into it.

Paradoxically given their troubled history with African-Americans for the last half-century the Republicans attempts to obscure him makes the most sense. It has far less to due with his racial background then the fact his ideology is one the party wants to forget it had. Brooke was a moderate, bordering on liberal Republican who supported civil rights, women's rights and civil liberties for gay rights – all of which sadly appeal to far too little of the GOP's base right now. He was fiscally conservative but unlike the majority of his colleagues in Congress (such as Goldwater) he was a pragmatist saying: "There are things that people can't do for themselves and therefore government must do it for them." That position was going out of style by the time Brooke lost reelection and its impossible to imagine him being able to get along with Reagan's philosophy when he became President two years later.

With African-Americans it speaks to an issue more about them rather than Brooke. By the time Brooke managed his historic accomplishment 'the movement' was beginning to lose interest in politics and was focusing far more on activism.  By any logical construct Brooke was doing far more for civil rights and African-Americans during the 1960s and 1970s then any of those who were in charge including the rising star Jesse Jackson.  (It couldn't have helped that he considered Stokely Carmichael and Lester Maddox in the same breath.)

I have little doubt that despite the fact he was doing everything he could for his people Brooke heard the expression 'Uncle Tom' over and over. The African-American community, then as now, had a low opinion of the Republican Party even when so many of their Congressional members were on their side when it came to civil rights during the 1950s and 1960s. (To be fair, they didn't much like Democrats either.) In large part this may have been due to their simplistic view of how the government worked. When Ralph Abernathy, a key member of the civil rights movement visited Nixon's White House they made it clear that they believed all the President had to do was press a button and the government would give them what they needed. (This theory of progressive politics has remained steady for half a century; under Obama is was referred to as the magic lantern theory.)

Brooke was in a position to understand this was not the case and he devoted his career to fighting the tide to make it work for the underprivileged. And it is worth noting his battles showed genuine political courage as opposed to that of the activist. Turning against Richard Nixon, fighting battles for civil rights in Congress and fighting for things such as housing and abortion were brave stands, particularly in a party that was going against it and for a state that didn't have enough African-American support to help him if he went too far to the left for his own good.

The circumstances of Brooke's election and reelection are also not things the Democrats are interested in highlighting either. For one there is the fact that Brooke's battle against segregationists remind people that not all of the segregationists marched out of the Democratic Party like Strom Thurmond did and that many of them were present until the early 1980s. For a party that wants to argue that it has always been the party of equality and civil rights and that bigotry and prejudice have always been the property of the GOP this is something they would rather not mention in Daily Kos.

And from a political standpoint Brooke's accomplishment point out another major weakness for the Democrats when it came to running for the Senate, particularly in the South. It is far easier for a white man to get elected as a Democrat then an African-American. The decision to ignore this reality, particularly in the last decade, has caused them to lose so many races that they could win. And it points out the uncomfortable truth that it is easier for a minority to run as a Republican in these states and win. It's why Tim Scott was able to win election in South Carolina in 2016 but Jamie Harrison was humiliated by Lindsey Graham when he ran against him in 2020. It's why Beto O'Rourke came far closer to defeating Ted Cruz in 2018 than Colin Allred did in 2024 – and why I have serious doubts that no matter who the Republicans nominate in 2026 Jasmine Crockett will be able to be them. Only in Georgia was Raphael Warnock able to win a Senate seat. But it's worth remembering that when he won reelection in 2022, Stacey Abrams was trounced by Brian Kemp when the two had a rematch for governor of that state.

In the era of identity politics it is easy – too easy – too argue that when a minority candidate runs for elected office and losing to a white Republican that it is bigotry that elected them, particularly in the South. Increasingly in my lifetime I've heard the argument made whenever a female candidate or a minority candidate runs for President and whenever question about their qualifications, the response is typical: "If they were a white man, you wouldn't ask that question." The problem is when you're running for any political office electability is the only question that is important for a candidate.  And coming from my perspective as a Democrat if you choose to ignore as a liability I can assure you the opposition won't.

In recent years there has been much attention paid to Shirley Chisholm's run for the Democratic nomination in 1972, both as an African-American and as a woman. But the fact she wasn't even through her second term in Congress before she chose to run for the Democratic nomination. If she had been a white man and made that decision everybody in politics would have immediately said that he had no business running for the highest office in the land. The candidacy was not taken seriously because there was no reason to take it seriously. And neither did the voters. The most she got in any state was 157.435 votes or 4.5 percent in California which amounted to 2.7 percent of the vote and 26 delegates.  It was not a serious candidacy and never had any chance of getting anywhere and yet she is held in higher regard by African-Americans then Brooke even though he got nearly three times as many votes in Massachusetts then she did in her entire primary run.

In my lifetime the only thing the Chisholm campaign inspired was a series of unqualified African-Americans in either party making runs for the Presidency with nothing more to advocate for them then their race. With the sole exception of Jesse Jackson's 1988 run, between 1984 and 2004 they were basically empty suits, from Alan Keyes to Alan Sharpton to Carol Moseley Braun and later on Herman Cain. We've seen similar patterns play out for so many other underqualified female and minority candidates throughout this century and by any logical standard so was Kamala Harris' 2020 run for the Democratic nomination.  By contrast both Nikki Haley and Tim Scott were far more qualified in terms of legislative and governing experience.

Brooke very well might have made a good Presidential candidate had the party been willing to go in that direction during the 1970s. It would have been a harder road for him then it would be future candidates such as Obama but he would have been more qualified then Jesse Jackson when he ran or men such as Keyes and Sharpton. Brooke would have understand how the corridors of power worked, how to reach across party lines and when to stand against your leadership. I don't know if when Cory Booker made his rec0rd breaking speech last year he was thinking of the legacy of Brooke or how it made it possible for him to be there. But I think Brooke would have been proud of him, even if Booker would not have thought the same thing.

Homicide Rewatch: M.E., Myself & I

 

Written by Lyle Weldon & Emily Whitesell ; story by Tom Fontana

Directed by Michael Fields

 

If Homicide had any flaw it’s the one that all police procedurals suffered from in the era of network TV. (Many of the creative forces behind Homicide would resolve them in their follow up series on cable and streaming.) How do you handle main characters who aren't detectives and therefore not central to the actions in investigations?

With Megan Russert the series started out decently but eventually had to double demote her to use her as a detective, thus acknowledging the basic flaw. It's been nearly a full season since J.H. Brodie became part of the unit and the detectives seem to treat him no better than the show itself. No doubt in large part to deal with the departure of Hoffman the series uses this episode to introduce its newest female character Chief M.E. Julianna Cox.

Michelle Forbes already had a reputation as a superb actress (see Hey, Isn't That to see that it would only get better from here) and this episode uses her to the most vital effect possible. The problem is the nature of the medical examiner as a whole in relation to the series. No one denies the medical examiner is important to the investigation and the series already has a solid rotation of performers in small but critical roles. Ralph Tabakin, who we see again in this episode, has been superb as the ancient and crotchety Scheiner who can say a lot with just a few words. Other actors such as Herb Levenson and Harlee McBride have done much with smaller roles.

To make a medical examiner a series regular and more importantly to justify doing so Fontana and the writers will go out of their way to give Forbes more screentime, particularly in the first several episodes after she's introduction as well as give her a fascinating backstory for her reason for coming to Baltimore in the first place.  However they will also end up putting Cox in places the show has never had them to this point, such as the squad room and getting in the faces of detectives which goes against their traditional role. And unfortunately the writers end up doing what they've done to every major female character other than Howard and essentially turn Cox into a love interest for one of the detectives.  To be fair they will handle it with much more of an effort then any prior romantic relationship they've done for any detective who is single on Homicide before and mostly do it well. But it speaks to the flaw in so many network dramas that they still can't see a female character in any role other than girlfriend.

It's a shame because from the moment she appears on screen Forbes nails Cox much in the same way few new characters have been introduced to this point when it comes to establishing the kind of person they are. While some viewers quickly got a negative impression – one book says they might have thought  "Uh-oh, here comes the token ratings-boosting bimbo" – Homicide has never been the kind of series that does things that way with any character.  They might well be forced to cast actors based on their good looks but they go out of their way to make it clear that there is much going on beneath them.

The first time we see Cox at work does much to show the strengths and limitations of her as a character. Bayliss and Lewis are investigating the murder of a prostitute and they begin to move the body rather than wait for the ME. Cox drives up in a snappish fashion and becomes territorial of the crime scene in front of Lewis. Oddly enough Lewis backs down but Bayliss is the primary and he only came for pretzels.

Bayliss is clearly impressed by her authority and it becomes clear almost immediately he has a crush on her. But this does nothing to compromise the chain of command. When they find the killer just a few feet away and Cox asks a question Bayliss firmly tells her to take care of the dead and he'll handle the living. Cox to her credit backs off for the only time in this episode.

We are now getting a case in point in regards to Mike Kellerman. Being reduced to administrative duty was already bad enough for a man of action; now he has to watch as the FBI talks to every single member of his unit in regard to the grand jury investigation.  And we can already see how much of it will bring out the worst in him.

Because he is an outsider and because he poses a threat to one of the detectives it is easy to view Agent Thomas Pandolfi as some kind of enemy. But from another perspective its clear that Pandolfi really isn't any different from any of the detectives, either in his approach or the questions he asks. It's not a huge shock to learn he worked Homicide himself considering he has the same behavior. That all of the detectives view him an obstruction is telling and is in itself a commentary on how little police believe they should be policed.

  Edward Hermann was just about to age into the patriarchal force he is now known for being in TV  but during this stretch of his career he also had the ability to portray characters with an edge that was adversarial.  At his core he's not doing anything the detectives haven't done before: trying to get to the truth of a crime. Indeed Kellerman himself put Jake Rodzinski through this exact process when he was investigating the murder of Kenny Damon.

And it is worth noting that Kellerman's behavior has not been beyond reproach to this point. We are reminded of how he sold a hot VCR to Munch and that nearly got both of them in trouble with internal and everything involving the Rose Halligan case should have gotten him and Lewis facing some consequences.  When Lewis says: "No man is without sin!" Pandolfi surprises him – and the audience – when he agrees. "My job is to find out if Kellerman's are mortal or merely venial."

The problem is Kellerman is taking the approach that even the idea of the process is an insult.  He keeps pushing everybody to tell him what happened in the interview room even though that violates how these things work.  He keeps walking to the observation room, despite the fact Giardello says its off limits. When Lewis comes out and tells him what happened Kellerman immediately sees it as a betrayal. The fact that he is guilty of the sin in question doesn't matter; that Lewis would have been in a jackpot of his own if he tried to hide the truth from the FBI is also irrelevant. What he clearly wants is everyone to tell him that they absolutely one hundred percent support him and that they didn't tell the Bureau anything that could remotely been seen as incriminating, even if they have to lie.

Kellerman clearly thinks he superior and is already showing it in the worst possible way. When Detective Connelly, who's also being investigated shows up in the bar, a drunk Kellerman goes out of his way to humiliate him under the eyes of brotherhood, when he throws beer at him and the two start brawling

By the time he sees Pandolfi he's actually insulted that the FBI has no interest in hearing his side of the story. If Kellerman believes that he can just wiggle out of this by saying he's innocent and that they'll take his word for it  - something he's been making clear to everybody who will listen – this is the first clear sign that his word will not cut it. Pandolfi has no doubt been in enough situations that he knows that what the accused has to say is the least important part in grand jury testimony and the only interest he has is Kellerman taking a drug test. Kellerman says that's humiliating which is beside the point. Kellerman tries to argue that everyone looks bad if you look hard enough, ignoring the fact that's he spent the entire episode paranoid and picking fights with allies and enemies alike. He both doesn't want to justify his behavior and wants the presumption of innocence and Pandolfi has no interest in giving him either.

And its not as though the main investigation of the episode doesn't demonstrate the very reason that the police force can be trusted to follow the rules.  The case Bayliss investigates – the murder of Steffy Hammett – is resolved so quickly the name is written up in black. But the suspect keeps talking for so long that he also confesses to the murder of a second prostitute. Bayliss can't find a record of her on the board and he asks Cox to look into it.

Her diligence leads to the discovery of Amy Introcaso, another prostitute whose death was listed as a drug overdose even though the toxicology doesn't read high enough. The case was investigated by Detective Higby who works for the other shift; we've seen him a few times in previous episodes.

Higby is the example of another in a line of sloppy cops. Not only is he not impressed by Bayliss's accomplishment he admits that he'd didn't bother investigating because the woman was a prostitute, he had a busy workload and no one would miss the victim. We've seen sloppy police work from some detectives before but we've rarely seen someone so lazy he doesn't want to work a murder because he doesn't think the victims life mattered. Cox is nearly as indignant as Bayliss on the subject, though in his case its due to professional reasons.

Not long after this Thomson's public defender manages to get the suspect to rescind his confession and the fact of the false toxicology report throws doubt on it. And its here we see something we haven't seen in a while. Frank Pembleton rising to the opportunity.

It seems as though Frank has decided to take his failure of the firearms exam and Gee's refusal to pull strings as a wakeup call. He knows that he has to prove to everybody that he is still a good detective even if he gets no credit for it. And that means doing something he rarely did when he was active: try to help his partner be better at his job. He does so in his typical indirect fashion. When Bayliss and Lewis are stumped he says: "You know what I would be doing if I were a Homicide detective?" It's not clear if either detective will listen but Frank actually tells them that the next thing to do is to unearth the dead prostitute's body and figure out if she died of an overdose or not. Tim and Meldrick agree (while of course saying they would have done it themselves). And sure enough the autopsy does prove Introcaso was strangled and Thomson is guilty. Bayliss points this out to Higby and its clear this experience was meaningless to him. (He won't be in Homicide much longer but not because of this.)

In this episode we see the personal lives of the two married detectives in the unit in two very different ways. We've known Meldrick's marriage was troubled ever since the fourth season finale but this is the first time we get an insight into it. Of course it's solely because Brodie has forced his presence on the Lewis household but this visit actually makes us wonder how much of the reason Brodie keeps being thrown from house to house is problems they already had.

Meldrick clearly doesn't think his wife is a good cook and she's clearly not welcome to the flirtations he tries early on. When we see Barbara say grace at the meal its clear this chafes Meldrick just as his remarks on Brodie's cooking hurt her. When Brodie casually mentions the portrait of Teddy Pendergast this leads to a fight between the two of them which makes us question what Barbara and Meldrick ever had in common at all. Barbara clearly never liked his taste in anything as a bachelor and its clear Meldrick thinks Barbara's overbearing. When Barbara decides to make the painting a condition of staying in the marriage and Meldrick has to think about it at all, it speaks to just how little commitment he really has to this. Meldrick blames Brodie for Barbara going to her mother's but we already knew this marriage was on thin ice without a third party involved. We've already seen Lewis often shift responsibilities to others while on the job; this demonstrates he's exactly like this in his personal life.

Now contrast this to Frank and how he is dealing with he and his wife's upcoming anniversary. We've rarely seen Frank this open or uncertain about his personal life to anyone, even Bayliss, and its interesting that he chooses to confide in Munch. (Clearly John's overcoming his issues with Pembleton being back a few episodes ago have had an impact on the relationship between the two.) Munch tells Frank that what his wife wants is not a great meal or a great theater experience but a roll in the hay. Frank is understandably dismissive of this but John reminds him that despite having three failed marriages he's had seven anniversaries. (Eight if you count when he and Gwen slept together after the divorce.)

The scene where Frank goes to his doctor and tells her what he wants to do is incredibly raw for him. This is a man who doesn't like to show any sign of vulnerability even to his wife and its telling how much he loves Mary that he's going through it at all. This degree of humility is a superb moment for Braugher as well as how he thanks the doctor for giving him this small opening.

The final scenes of the episode show all of the characters we meet at their most vulnerable. Mike, who has been carrying the weight of all this for weeks, finally breaks down prior to taking the drug test and decides to call his parents and tell them what is happening. This is a moment of personal vulnerability for Kellerman that we rarely see throughout this and indeed much of the series, and it makes the episode a personal high point for Reed Diamond.

Then we see Frank and Mary at home having sent the sitter home. We see just how nervous he is about making love to his wife and just how much Mary's support to him. The scenes between the real life husband and wife Braugher and Brabson always have a great soulfulness to them and it adds a layer of tenderness.

And then Bayliss comes down to the morgue to thank Cox, who is sitting by a body waiting for the funeral parlor. For the first time since we met her Julianna looks vulnerable as she opens up telling him something close to the truth about how she deals with her job:

I drive too fast. I drink too much. I fall madly in love with the wrong man.

She will do all three on this show before this season is over. But its only in the final moments we realize this significance.

We learn she came back home earlier to take care of her father, who has refused to be hospitalized for reasons we don't yet know. Now with a shock that comes with the kind of pain we've haven't really felt since Frank's stroke, we learn that her father has succumbed and she is there to take him to the parlor.

Had Cox served only as a recurring character instead of a regular the ability of Forbes might have had more power. As it is this episode is very much the high point of her work on this series though we're not going to see the evidence of the decline for many months to come.

 

NOTES ON THE BOARD

Detective Munch' He's actually more supportive then he appears not only when it comes to advising Frank on the best way to celebrate his anniversary but when he tells Kellerman that its in his best interest to talk to his parents because they might be able to help. That said he still has some good lines in regard to the FBI, particularly when Pandolfi first arrives. "The Bureau just hasn't been the same since J. Edgar Hoover. They can't find the right man to fill his bra."

Brodie Is On The Move! The episode begins with Bayliss dropping Brodie's bags on the squad floor and telling him to have a nice life. "Now I understand why he got kicked out of his own place," he tells Munch.  Again this seems to be more Bayliss' problem then Brodie's: his big sin was getting philosophical over the breakfast table. "You ever discuss Nietzsche over a Pop-Tart?" Which makes you wonder why Munch kicked him out.

He ends up in Lewis's place by saying he won fourth prize in a chili cook-off. Meldrick's reluctant until he describes the recipe as 'beer chili'. It's not clear how long Brodie would last anyway; he's not as confident in his cooking as he claims.

Maybe You Need the DVD, Maybe you Don't: The streaming version of means you don't get to hear Los Lobos version of 'Georgia Shop' as Cox drives into Baltimore, which is fitting theme music. However you will hear Jimmy Scott's mournful "There's No Disappointment in Heaven in the final scene in the morgue when Cox drives away.  I think that works well enough.

 

Hey, Isn't That… Michelle Forbes began her career as Sonni on Guiding Light between  1987-1989. She would make a spectacular film debut in Kalifornia along side David Duchovny, Juliette Lewis and a then relatively little known Brad Pitt. She'd had a recurring role as Ensign Ro in Star Trek: The Next Generation and was originally supposed to be one of two semi-regular characters to go to the next spin-off Deep Space Nine along with Colm Meaney's Miles O'Brien. She elected not to and would have roles in smaller films such as Swimming With The Sharks and the sequel to Escape from New York, Escape From LA.

After leaving Homicide she has one of the most formidable careers in television of any actress in the 21^st century. She had a recurring role in the first season of The District and was a regular in Wonderland, the very short-lived debut of Peter Berg as a writer director in TV. She would play Lynne Kresge in the second season of 24.

She would play Admiral Cain of The Pegasus in the reimagining of Battlestar: Galactica and play Samantha Brinker in Season 1 of Prison Break. She also had roles in short lived series such as Waking The Dead and Durham County, while playing Kate Weston, Gabriel Byrne's troubled spouse in the HBO drama In Treatment during its first two seasons. She played Maryann Forrester, the major villain in Season 2 of True Blood and received what is shockingly her only Emmy nomination to date for her role as Mitch Larsen in the AMC's masterpiece The Killing.

She's had major roles in genre TV more than anything else, from a small role in Orphan Black, Helen in the ABC remake of The Returned, Retro Girl in Powers. Her biggest roles in TV include Valerie in Berlin Station, Ellen Becker in Treadstone and Veronica Fuentes in New Amsterdam. Her last appearance on TV to date was the recreation of Ro Laren in Picard.

Edward Herrman, who plays Agent Pandolfi, is one of the very few actors who appeared on all three series associated with Tom Fontana in the 20^th century. He played Father McCade on St. Elsewhere and Tobias Beecher's father on OZ starting in 2000. One of the greatest character actors of all time I'm strictly to focus on his television work.

He would make his TV debut as Richard Palmer in Beacon Hill and play FDR as a young man in the TV miniseries Eleanor & Franklin which would he play again in the follow up. He would nominated for Emmys for both roles as well as for playing Father McCabe on St. Elsewhere in 1986 and 1987. Throughout his career he played many famous people in TV movies including Lou Gehrig, Alger Hiss, George Bernard Shaw, Branch Rickey and in the James Dean TV movie Raymond Massey. He would also play Herman Munster in the ill-fated TV movie Here Comes The Munsters. He would eventually win his only Emmy for playing Anderson Pierson, a mentor to Lindsey Dole in The Practice accused of murder.

But it was only he took on the role of the warm-hearted Richard Gilmore, father of Lorelai, mother of Rory that he became worshipped in the eyes of millions to the point of beloved. He continued to act in series such as Law & Order in multiple roles, the oldest intern in history in Grey's Anatomy and Senator Warren in the failed pilot of Wonder Woman. He had recurring roles on the Good Wife and Harry's Law as well as the short-lived series Black Box. He would give voice to FDR one last time in Ken Burns' documentary The Roosevelts. He passed away on December 31^st 2014 at only 71.