Vee

And finally:

I can't take people like Ryan Grim, who dogged the relief bill the entire time, seriously when they're now feigning outrage that it won't have Biden's name emblazoned on the checks. Now they want the credit of supporting what is turning out to be a very substantial bill. I'm sure they'd be thrilled if Bernie's was on there too. Do I think it would hurt Biden to put his name on them? No. But I understand why he hasn't, and it's clear his team has learned lessons from 2009 because they talk about those lessons constantly and have made it clear to the Dem Congress that they will not tolerate running from the bill or not promoting it and tying themselves to its success. I suspect that is part of what his televised address on Thursday night will be about; linking him further to the bill. Meanwhile, this I didn't know: This is slight hyperbole, but it's still important: The Hyde amendment prohibits federal funds for abortion except in the case of rape, abuse or incest. To be clear, the Senate version of the relief bill specifically does not offer protections for the Hyde amendment, which many budget bills have in the past, meaning some of the money in the bill will be free to be given for abortion funding. Also: Politico once again uses a Dem-negging headline to try to get clicks and bury the lede on what we noticed about Manchin a few days ago: That he is prepared to at the very least gut the filibuster or reform it, if not dump it outright when given verifiable proof in this term that the GOP will abuse it (and that is an exercise that will 100% have to play out first on some bill in order to move a real change, to give those waffling Dem Senators political cover). When guys like Adam Jentleson and others are all saying the same thing about Manchin, when Manchin is stridently in favor of H.R. 1 while knowing it can't pass without either reconciliation or filibuster nuking, it is time to listen.

The subheader is typical Politico concern trolling of Dems and an overblown extrapolation of Psaki's quote from last week. Biden will absolutely go along with filibuster reform if not more.

The WHPC are deeply stupid:

Phew:

We're still waiting on your thoughts, @DRW50!

Burnout. I think you only see hints of his past obsessions in stuff like the Delia story and the endless trauma they keep rehashing with it years later.

It's been mentioned, but:

On a shallow note, Harry looks very good. And he's being remarkably candid in the special about the symbiotic relationship with the UK press and the royals. I'm too young to know if anyone else from inside (Fergie, Diana) ever was on record, and Diana was not born into it like him.

This is pretty gutwrenching in the middle portion - Meghan talking about being suicidal. The source is the Daily Mail (trash) and someone she knew when she was 15? I don't think posing outside the palace as a teenager like millions of tourists every year is proof of an obsession.

It should be noted that Meghan makes a point of saying the Queen was always 'wonderful' to her, although I'm not finished watching the special. I wanted to get a fuller picture beyond the clipped highlights.

Manchin is shít in many ways but he's no fool. Here is another clear signal from him, after vocally backing both HR1 and filibuster reform in the last two weeks:

That's about what I expected. I think the lasting impact back in the UK will be in the younger generations, at least anecdotally from English friends. I do think it kills the British press and the royals that they can't wholly control the response here, as they often couldn't with Diana. Meghan is more divisive than Diana was, but they will continue to get attention and sympathy.

For people who want to watch the full 90-minute special, CBS appears to have it up here commercial-free.

I think part of it was an incredible writing team behind them and a gifted EP (Linda Gottlieb) with a very specific vision. But like I said before, I think another key aspect was that they balanced each other out. Malone was often the more florid and romantic guy given to flights of fancy; he could be very dark too and loved southern gothic stuff, but that's a kind of romanticism as well. Griffith was perceived as the edgier, grittier, younger writer who gave the social issue stories (particularly the gang rape) their bite. They created a great formula together with both dark and light. These are superficial stereotypes of each writer, though, and I'm sure there's much more nuance to both men. But we also know Griffith was big on the use of popular, current music, something he brought back with him in 2003 alongside Frank Valentini. I still remember when he and Malone were still ghostwriting early in that year; they did dramatic material with music from both Tori Amos and Elvis Costello, the latter being in a very kinky scene with Ty Treadway and Cat Hickland. The show had gone from brightly lit, loud camp under Gary Tomlin to dark and stylish again very quickly (and soon devolved back into dark camp not long after, but that's another story). That's how you knew Griffith (and Malone) were back. By contrast, if you only have one guy who is already past his prime pushing an (increasingly dated) take on dark, edgy, gritty material - dead kids, cold blooded murder (though again, that DAYS story was 100% justified IMO), rape on the family couch, Jigsaw the Vietnam vet is your dad and has locked you in a torture chamber, etc. - weaknesses are exposed much more quickly.

Megan McTavish's first run at AMC was largely well received because she had a tremendous amount of help behind her, AFAIC. Yet she took credit for most of it. When she was left to her own devices it went south.