NBC Reconsiders Hillary Clinton Miniseries, While CBS Eyes Its Own Secretary of State Drama

Hillary Clinton Miniseries Hillary Clinton is providing inspiration for one potential TV project and problems for another.

As TVLine previously reported, the former secretary of state and possible 2016 presidential candidate is the subject of an announced NBC miniseries starring Diane Lane.

But our sister site Deadline reports that the project was the reason behind the Republican National Committee voting Friday to block the Peacock Net — as well as CNN, which is planning to air a documentary on Clinton in 2014 — from hosting GOP primary debates.

Not long after the RNC’s vote, NBC released a statement that leaves the project’s future up in the air.

RELATED | NBC Orders Pilot for Futuristic Prison Break-Esque Drama

Citing that the network is only in the script stage regarding the four-hour event, NBC entertainment chairman Bob Greenblatt’s remarks seem to indicate that the project may never reach production. “Speculation, demands and declarations pertaining to something that isn’t created or produced yet,” he adds, “seem premature.”

Meanwhile, Fox TV Studios, which had been tentatively attached to producing, has decided not to continue with the telepic.

RELATED | CBS Plans Medical Drama Based on The Wizard of Oz

CBS, however, is moving ahead with its own Hillary-esque drama. Per Deadline, the network is working with Morgan Freeman (The Dark Knight Rises) and Joan of Arcadia creator Barbara Hall to develop Madame Secretary. The potential series will follow a “maverick” female secretary of state at work and at home.

Hall will pen the script, which she’ll executive-produce with Freeman and Through the Wormhole‘s Lori McCreary and Tracy Mercer.

Would you watch a Hillary-based movie and/or series? Does all of this talk just kind of make you wish Political Animals had been renewed? Sound off in the comments!

Comments are monitored, so don’t go off topic, don’t frakkin’ curse and don’t bore us with how much your coworker’s sister-in-law makes per hour. Talk smart about TV!

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

  1. Kristina says:

    I watch TV to get AWAY from reality. I wouldn’t watch a show that reminds me of it.. And I wish Political Animals had been renewed!

    • Political Animals reminded me of reality… Or at least the way we hope reality should be. (I also wish that it had been renewed.)

      As for the Hilary miniseries… yea I probably would watch. Probably will watch it when it finds another network due solely to the publicity that all this is stirring up.

    • ajintexas says:

      I agree. I don’t mind seeing these projects as a retrospective of a career in it’s entirety, once that career is over. This is a blatant attempt to bypass federal laws regarding equal airtime for all Presidential candidates by trying to disguise it as a biography or a fictional drama. I think most Americans got tired of this type of propaganda during the last election. And if you think it’s not propaganda you are completely ignorant.

      • StupidPeopleShutUp says:

        You’re an imbecile. She’s a public figure. She’s a peivate citizen. She’s denied she has any plans to run for office. What are you so afraid of?

        • ajintexas says:

          The only imbecile here is the one that thinks Hillary Clinton isn’t running for President in 2016. Your drunk uncle Joe Biden sure can’t win. Stop insulting everyone that has an IQ above 100 with your moronic statements that Hillary isn’t running. I imagine you are trolling, but if not how stupid do you have to be to believe that she isn’t running when these specials are timed just in time for the next elections.

        • ajintexas says:

          It has nothing to do with being afraid of anything. Why do you think you need to cheat to win? It wasn’t enough that some people were voting for Obama up to eight times each? Gotta get your propaganda machine going full tilt on television as well. If there was anything to be afraid of, it would be people like you that can’t form a coherent thought that makes any sense.

        • StupidPeopleShouldn'tTalk says:

          Seriously, calling others an “imbecile” when you can’t even spell “private”, er, I’m assuming that’s what “peivate” means. Look up irony in the dictionary.

        • TV Gord says:

          Well, that escalated quickly.

        • Kevin Kane says:

          CBS, and the other networks for that matter, should do a service to the public and instead of dreaming up whitewashed puff pieces for their soon to be anointed queen, do an honest portrayal of the REAL Hillary, the one who tried to orchestrate her own socialist takeover of healthcare when not even holding elective office. Or turning $5,000 into $100,000 in commodity trading, lying about getting shot at taking off in an airplane, who hired Craig Livingstone, blaming the GOP (“vast, right wing conspiracy”) for Bill’s infidelity, why Susan Rice was sent out to the networks to lie about some YouTube video being the reason for the Benghazi murders, and when will she and Obama come clean about what really was going on in Libya on 9/11/12

      • Yo says:

        No matter the politics, it isn’t appropriate for any network to run a bio of anyone likely to be running for President. If if not intended to influence politics, it does. I would not have watched it for this reason, and I would likely stayed away from the network’s news division.

        • Esaul says:

          The sad thing is, it’s not even 2015 where the potential candidates really start going around announcing their interest to run. If it aired in 2014 anyway, there would be no harm. And that’s two years before the election, which a good chunk of time will go by and it won’t have any influence.

  2. Janet says:

    It’s pathetic to see NBC obey the demands of the God Loves Rape Party.

    • ajintexas says:

      They are free to disregard the feelings of the GOP. The GOP has ever right to shut them out when they are giving an unfair advantage to a Democratic candidate. They can claim it’s a biography, but I bet things like Benghazi won’t appear in it or will be written differently than what actually happend. And although I am not a Repub or a Democrat, I think it”s shameful that you call them the God Loves Rape Party. Does that make your party the No Such Thing As God Exists So We Can Murder Babies and Promote Mass Genocide of Minority Children Party? Cuz, ya know, abortion targets predominantly the minorities you claim to represent.

      • StupidPeopleShutUp says:

        Another genius. You know, of course, that there’s no baby being aborted, right? That it’s a bunch of cells?

        • ajintexas says:

          You know, since you are so much smarter than everyone else, that a fetus has a heartbeat only a month into development. It’s not a “clump of cells”, except during the very first couple of weeks of development and LONG before the vast majority of women have an abortion. See, I took embryology in Medical School unlike the internet hero of misinformation that you are. Have you ever seen a baby that has been aborted? Again, the vast majority of the time that “clump of cells” looks exactly like a fuilly formed human being. But hey, whatever makes you sleep better at night after killing a baby right? How many abortionists in this country have to be convicted of killing a baby by cutting the spinal cord with scissors after inducing a live delivery before you wake up? You make me sick.

          • liz says:

            Its irrelevant to debate when “life” begins. All that’s important is that women have the right to choose. Some women believe abortion is wrong and will carry a baby to term. Other women don’t have a moral problem and will opt for an abortion. It does not matter who is “right” – its about the woman doing what’s right for herself. Her choice. Her body.

        • TV Gord says:

          It seems to be someone with a strong argument wouldn’t need to resort to name-calling from their very first sentence.

      • Mary says:

        Democratic candidate? For what exactly? She has made no announcements that she’s running for President. But the GOP are afraid of her anyway.

        • ajintexas says:

          So what we should do is let these specials run to build up public support for her through what amounts to propaganda, and then she can pretend that she is being talked into running when she does announce. Please, do you REALLY think people are that naive? Come on.

          • Esaul says:

            You do realize that this is 2013. We’re three years away from the election. It’s not going to build any sort of propaganda. If this were late 2015, going into 2016, then I could see the GOP’s concern in wanting to stop NBC and CNN from doing this. But since that’s not the case, there is no point in this. GOP wasn’t about to force Trump off his show when he was considering running, now were they? Of course he would have to have vacated his show if he did announce, but that was only speculation. And we’re at that stage, speculation. It’s far too soon for anyone to seriously announce their bid for 2016. Give it until 2015, then we’ll talk. Maybe even very late 2014.

    • Drew says:

      It was a female Democrat politician who looked a rape victim in the eye and told her that she shouldn’t be allowed to defend herself from an attack, she should have used a call box or entered a “safe zone”. You wanna discuss the party that actually enables the rapists of the world? Let’s talk about it then.

    • Kevin Kane says:

      Since you want to label the GOP based upon what some minor GOP player said, (really, your own twisted version) let’s look at what Hillary said about four Americans killed in Libya last year and the LIES used to cover up the real reason they were killed: “What difference does it make?” So let’s call the Democratic party The We Love To Lie To US Citizens Party.

  3. David Duke says:

    The Repukebicans are doing the vast majority of America a favor by not staging their clown act.

    • ajintexas says:

      You and the commenter above you are proof of how vile and hateful liberals are. Two faced hypocrites. You allegedly “revile” what Republicans stand for as hateful, and Janet stupidly accuses them of favoring rape, yet here you are doing EXACTLY what you are accusing them of and using the name David Duke. It’s hilarious to watch the hateful and shameful thing liberals will say and do while trying to claim the moral high ground. You are an insult to the people you claim to stand for.

      • Jen says:

        My God you are a hateful piece of bull crap aren’t you? If you republicans don’t like being called out for your hate spewing and your anti-women crusades perhaps you should stop treating women with such complete and utter hatred. And sorry, but calling you out for your hate spewing isn’t hate. It is called standing up for our rights. As humans.

        • Ana says:

          That’s a bit harsh. There’s nothing in ajintexas comments that can be construed as hatred. Caring for the lives of unborn babies and justice for those who died in Benghazi should be the most common denominator in our civilized society. Claiming that Republicans hate women and endorse rape can actually be considered a much more hostile and unsubstantiated accusation.

        • ajintexas says:

          I’m not a Republican. I’m a Libertarian that is sick of both sides of politics in this country and the hypocrisy that comes with each party. Now I may lean a little more conservative in your eyes because I think abortion is nonsense, but I also think keeping gay people from having the same rights as me nonsense as well. I’m not some ignorant sheep that tows a party line. I can decide for myslef what I think is right and wrong. I am no more impressed with George Bush when he said God told him to start a war. That utterly makes no sense. I am not, however, ashamed to point out that the first two posts in this thread on the topic of politics were by two liberals bashing Republicans. I responded to their name calling with well thought out and factual posts. And you resorted right back to name calling. I have to laugh at the Republican “war on women” when Democrats are waging a “war on brown babies, a war on the 2nd amendment, a war on the first amendment, a war on the 4th amendment, and a war on christianity” in this country. Both parties are equally guilty of being full of a bunch of misinformed ignorant people. I wish you would all stop interefering in everyone else’s lives because you think you know what is best for your neighbor.

        • Mari says:

          You don’t seem to be particularly self-aware. You might want to work on that.

    • Drew says:

      You aren’t understanding how this works… the debates will happen. NBC and CNN are the losing parties there. The types of acts they put on last time will not be tolerated again and if you think it is wrong to stand against the media pushing their agenda, you’re crazy.

      But bonus intellect points for the clever nickname. It was cute.

  4. LynnH says:

    Yes, I absolutely wish Political Animals had been renewed. Awesome cast. But I have no interest in a network TV political biopic of any kind.

  5. JBC says:

    I probably would not watch a Hilarie Clinton miniseries, and I dislike Political Themed TV Shows. There are 24/7 News Channels for any kind of political leaning you care to follow. I go to those networks when I am interested in politics or news.
    I prefer my entertainment in the form of fictional dramas or comedies, like NCIS, POI, White Collar, Burn Notice, Breaking Bad , Psych, Graceland, BBT, The Americans, The Middle, SWAB, Parenthood, and some reality, i.e. Survivor, or DWTS.

  6. The powers that be at NBC need to grow a back bone and tell the GOP to shove it up their respective asses.

    • ajintexas says:

      Just out of curiosity, you wouldn’t have had a problem with Fox running a biography of Mitt Romney’s life during the last election. And I’m not talking a fact for fact version, but a Hollywood glamorized version that negated important facts or twisted how events actually occurred? I have no doubt whatsoever that the Democrats would have been up in arms. Like most poeple said, let’s leave the politics to the politicans and not try to work around federal laws regarding airtime for candidates to promote themselves to the American public. I can’t imagine you are under the delusion that this would in any way portray Clinton in a negative light right before an election. But hey, iot’s ok to cheat and bend the rules to win as long as your side wins right?

      • ajintexas says:

        And by the way, if this went to court, it could be argued that this is a highly illegal campaign contribution to Clinton on several fronts. One would be that they are paying for it and profiting off it in the name of a political candidate. Another being that the opposition candidate would need about a billion dollars just to buy equal advertising time on NBC that is being given to Clinton for free of charge. If she doesn’t run, then go right ahead. If she does, then it should not air until after the election. The timing is blatantly obvious what they are trying to do.

    • Drew says:

      Grow a backbone? It took balls of steel to play the types of games that the news outlets have been playing for the past few elections. Favoring candidates. Having debate moderators answering questions for candidates. Editing interviews to completely change the answers to questions.

      I say it’s about time the GOP grew a backbone and stood against media campaigning. Do you think anyone believes that this issue is making the GOP look bad or they will lose any support over it? That is a joke. Nobody is even questioning the issue of bias from the networks and in news media, that is bad.

  7. Chablis says:

    What is with the new ad placement on TVline?
    And NBC don’t be dictated by the Republicans….or the Democrats.

    • Ana says:

      By any chance, do you watch NBC? Because that is the most political network around. Their shows, even their comedies are chuck full of subtle and not so subtle political propaganda. Whether it was Harry’s Law calling Rush Limbaugh the head of the Republican party or Leslie Knope in Parks and Rec exhibiting Hilary Clinton photos or singing the praises of liberal female politicians. I love Leslie, don’t get me wrong, but you are naive if you think networks are apolitical and you are not being subliminally indoctrinated.

      • Ashley says:

        Leslie sings the praises of strong female politicians. The fact they are primarily liberal is due to the larger presence of female liberals, but she also has a photo of Rice in her office.

        Leslie herself is a liberal, and the show is more liberal, but the passion Leslie has for strong female figures is party-agnostic.

        • Ana says:

          I have never noticed a pic of Condolezza Rice but will def be on the look out during the new season. And yes, she does have great admiration for strong female leaders in general but according to her ranking, non-Libs like Olympia Snow rank at the bottom. But that’s completely understandable since she is in fact a liberal. My point had a lot less to do with Parks and Rec in particular and much more to do with the fact that networks, as well as entertainers, use their platforms to either overtly or covertly put forward their political ideology and it would be naive to think otherwise.

  8. katrina says:

    NBC should spend the money on getting better writers for Revolution. Or any other show on their network that has the potential to be good. A Clinton miniseries? I’d rather watch paint dry.

    • mia says:

      “AMEN to watching paint dry, instead!” And sure wouldn’t be the 1st Or Last Mistake NBC makes! That station should be called “NBC, the Wussy station!”

  9. MrMank says:

    I would not watch a miniseries on her no matter what network it aired on. She is a criminal. And people actually want her to run in 2016?

    • Resplendent Independent says:

      Yup. And boy, does that prospect scare the pants off the GOP.

      • ajintexas says:

        Not really. She lost to B.O. who literally came out of nowhere. People in the GOP are not afraid of Hillary, they are afraid of the precedent that will be set by allowing networks to run political biographies of candidates that could influnece an election. I thought all the anti-corporate people would be against stuff like this, but nope. What prevents NBC from airing a flattering bio of the Deocratic candidate and then a hit piece bio of the Repbulican. We have federal laws that were enacted to make elections fair and every American should be against corporate owned networks using their money and airwaves that the American taxpayers let them use to promote their political agenda. But I imagine liberal voters see no issue as it tends to favor their candidatates. And they can continue living in tents in a park protesting the same people they are letting manipulate the elections. What has B.O./ done for you? He let your tax cuts expire so you are all paying more taxes out of every check, and now he will use the IRS to force you to by insurance from his corporate buddies. And he will continue to let the NSA listen to your phone calls. But we should vote in his partner in crime? Wow.

      • Drew says:

        Do you know how many bodies Hillary has left in her wake? Do you know how easy it would be to campaign against her? She never even went up against a Republican in the last election and she lost. Whatever good will there was toward her will have diminished since she hitched her carriage to the Obama administration. Now all the Republicans have to do is mention the word “Benghazi” and play the video where she expresses how much she doesn’t care how those men died.

        If she is your strongest candidate, I wouldn’t start planning any inauguration parties if I were you.

        • Two words: CITIZENS UNITED. The case that changed everything. I used to support the Republican Party until they stopped being the party of common sense and became the party of social intrusion. Many of you blame Obama for NSA yet he was only continuing the failed policies of his republican predecessor. This party used to be one of strong moral values yet now waste all their time trying to pin Benghazi on the democrats. If we’re going to do that then I will happily pin 9/11 on the republicans. After all, like Benghazi u were warned and did nothing to prevent the greatest terrorist attack in our history. Don’t get me wrong, I am not a fan of Obama or his liberal party. But I’m far more dissatisfied with republicans. You guys argue as if you we’re never in power yet the first 6 years of the bush White House republicans controlled both houses of congress. Now u split congressional power with the dems and instead of doing your job it’s been one crisis after another and somehow u managed to blame the president for all it. Today’s Republican Party is a joke. U gripe about NBC yet FOX NEWS has been the talking piece of the republicans for years. So save me the fake outrage. I know what to expect next….me being called a RINO. Which is funny cause from the late 50s until the early 70s “RINOs” got the job done and they kept getting elected. You neo-conservatives are the worst.

  10. Ana says:

    I like Hilary and she had my support in 2008. But her term as State Secretary was just full of misses. No ‘reset button’ available for that. Get it? I guess those who get their news from Comedy Central probably won’t. Anywho, all I can say is, “what difference does it make at this point”? He, he. I am looking forward to the CBS version though. It sounds interesting.

  11. Lily L says:

    I’m really sick and tired of the Republicans trying to bully everyone. And if NBC caves they’re a bunch of wussies.

    • ajintexas says:

      ROFL. And Democrats aren’t bullying people when they attempt to force the religious to violate their core beliefs? Or they aren’t being bullies when they make false claims that Repbulicans hate women because they are in favor of rights for the unborn? They aren’t bullies for trying to punish all gun owning American for the actions of a few while they surround themselves with armed guards to ensure their stranglehold on power. You have been successfully indoctrinated.

      • Cassandra says:

        If by forcing the religious to violate their beliefs, you mean forcing Catholic employers to cover contraceptive coverage, then yes, because the history of the Catholic church has been riddled with hypocrisy that allows them to pick and choose which sins they are willing to pay for and which they are not. It is estimated that in the last 15 years, the Catholic church has doled out 3.3 billion dollars in abuse settlement in the US alone. If my tithings have to cover for those perversions, than it should cover a Catholic school teacher who wants to go on the pill, and whose right to medical privacy will keep the Catholic church ignorant to her sins, which if she was a man they would be more than happy to oblige. You want less unborn children being “murdered”, then stop arguing about coverage for birth control. Having worked in health insurance for almost a decade, I find is deplorable that an insurer can opt out of covering the pill, but there is no clause that can exclude Viagra or Cialis which one could argue goes against God’s designs.

        • Drew says:

          There is a such thing as freedom of religion in this country. Religious organizations should not be forced to violate their beliefs and more than GLAAD should have to finance Patsy Away the Gay camps or PETA should be forced to fund my next barbecue.

          People have the right to not work for those organizations or attend their schools. You have the right to not attend their church or tithe. If you choose to support those churches, that is your choice… which is different than a government mandate. You must realize that.

          • Cassandra says:

            Why would PETA have to fund your next BBQ? Are you employed by them? If so, you are allowed to take the money you earn and buy all the meat and fur products you like. They are not going to fire you for it. However, if you are a female working for the Catholic church or diocese, they will fire anyone who goes against what they consider immoral, but they are not applying the same standards towards men. There have been multiple lawsuits recently about female employees who either had a child out of wedlock or used in vitro fertilization who were fired, but male employees participating in the exact same “immoral” activities were not. The church has no problem turning a blind eye when it suits their needs. I don’t work for a church, so I’m not asking them for anything, but if I were employed by them, I would expect them to cover my insurance and keep there noses out of my private medical records.

          • Drew says:

            Let’s be clear. I am not the employee of a religious organization. I am not a member of any denomination, except that I am Christian. I don’t belong to a church. I don’t go to church. I am disturbed by a lot of churches, in fact.

            But I believe that those organizations have a right to their beliefs and I believe that is a violation of their Constitutional rights to force them to violate those beliefs. If an employee doesn’t like it, I support their right to leave. Until those organizations hold a person against their will, inflict bodily harm, or otherwise violate someone else’s rights, they should be free to operate.

        • Kevin Kane says:

          Tithings are voluntary, taxes are not. Catholics should not be taxed or their institutions forced to perform abortions

      • Cassandra says:

        I’d like to add that insurers cherry picking what benefits they want to cover and exclude is what causes states like California to over-regulate their insurance laws which in turn drives up the cost of insurance that it is no longer economically viable. If the laws were simplified(which I agree that the current administration doing nothing to help with)and there were caps to punitive fines applied in malpractice cases, then health care costs would drop in this country. The ability to award asinine amounts of money in lawsuits are one of the primary reasons hospitals charge phenomenal fees for care. The other reason is that the uninsured are forced to go into emergency rooms for non-emergent situations, and because they do not have coverage for rehab facilities, long-term care, or hospice will stay as long as they can because the hospitals do not have a choice in discharging them, causing the hospital to apply those burdens onto insurance companies and the insured. There is no one enemy either party can place blame on, and as complex as the matter has gotten, there needs to be cooperation in order for any change for the better to take place. Birth control is such a small fraction of the cost of healthcare, which is why I find it ridiculous that it is where the the gridlock in change usually begins. There are so many more important matters to focus on, tunnel vision is what is causing a standstill in improvements.

        • Ana says:

          You have valid concerns, but the doctrine of the Catholic church in regards to contraception is not new. As an employer, they are not taking anything away from their female employees. And the church/state separation works both ways. For the government to dictate to the church what benefits or services it must provide violates the constitutional principle as it was intended by the framers. The fact the some of their priests have been involved in sex scandals is not an indictment on the entire organization, and is actually irrelevant to this discussion. Also, his whole thing is being used as a political football. You can get contraceptives from a number of providers for very low prices. And I say this as a non-catholic.

          • Drew says:

            Good point. If the government is going to get involved with religious institutions, those institutions are entitles to a voice in the government. Taxation without representation and all of that.

            So the people who support government demands on religion, as a result, support religious intervention in government.

      • Mitholas says:

        Oh, this post is kind of hilarious.

        The claims that Republicans (not all… but some high-profile jack-asses definitely) hate women stems from a LOT more than their general stance on abortion. Among things I’ve been hearing about from republicans for years, just two that come to mind are the opposition of equal pay legislation, and a whole bunch of comments about rape that are entirely unrealistic, unacceptable and downright damaging (to name one: (not a direct quote) “women don’t get pregnant from rape, the body has a way to shut all that down”). There’s a lot more sexism than a lot of people want to acknowledge, and there’s a good number of republicans who seem to have deepseated desire (even if they don’t recognize it in themselves) to exemplify that.

        No one is forcing the religious to violate their core beliefs, but the religious also can’t force those beliefs on everyone else. Which should be self-evident, as even the religious can’t actually form a consensus amongst themselves which beliefs are core, and as some of the supposed core beliefs of some religious people are based on nothing but hate. I mean, when there’s a multitude of different religions around the world, how can anyone really claim that their religion is, without a doubt, the one true one? Even if you want to believe that, as is your right, you still have to recognize that not everyone is going to agree. The right to freedom of religion doesn’t mean you have the freedom to force your beliefs based on religion on everyone else, it means everyone is entitled to their own belief, whether they are christians, muslims, buddhists, atheists, agnostics, … There is no universal moral code that anyone can claim to know. Religion is something a person chooses to live their own life by, and that’s as it should be. You get to live your own life, everyone else gets to live theirs. Everyone gets that freedom, or no one does, you can’t pick and choose.

        As for guns: I find it astounding that, even when faced with the numbers regarding accidental AND purposeful deaths because of shootings, people still attempt to maintain that owning a gun should be a right for everyone. Maybe, if we would be able to assume most people are responsible enough to handle a thing like that with the care it requires, this would be less of an issue. But do you really think we should trust every moron to treat a gun responsibly? Around kids? Even knowing that kids, as we’ve seen in recent examples, can get a hold of a gun and accidentally shoot a sibling? A parent? A friend? Too many lives are put at stake by guns every year.

        You call it indoctrination. I call it actually thinking things through and listening to people with differing opinions instead of jumping to your own conclusions regardless of the validity of anyone else’s arguments. Politics should be about debate and reaching the best possible conclusion. Silencing a creative project because it doesn’t suit your political needs can then, indeed, be called bullying.

        • Ana says:

          Your commentary would be more effective if it was more substantive. There are loons in every group, including the GOP and the Dems. Comments made by some individuals do not necessarily reflect the views of the whole party. Otherwise you could argue that the fact that women in the white house are still paid less then the male counterparts and that they hold less executive positions can be ingerpreted as a ‘war on women’. As far as religion, the Catholic church is not attempting to bully all of society into adopting their views on contraception. They are fighting for their right to protect the teachings of the church. Likewise, the government should refrain from attempting to violate the church sovereignty by imposing their social agenda and regulations on the church. As far as guns, people don’t think they should have a right, the constitution already grants that right. And yes, there are many tragic accidents with guns, as well as with cars, and step ladders and lawn mowers….hopefully you get the picture. Also, indoctrination happens when you are continuously exposed to the same ideology without consideration for others. Which is what we get a lot of in the media. And you really should not confuse politics, which is all about power, and governance, which is about civic duty. Two completely different things.

          • JCK says:

            You neglect to mention that religion, like politics, is also all about power.

          • Ana says:

            No I didn’t. That point is completely irrelevant to the running discussion because this is not about comparing one to the other. I addressed separate points made by the poster. But if your point is to denigrate religion, well, to each its own. I don’t have a particular fondness for organized religion. But I do respect others’ beliefs.

  12. Pixie says:

    Yes, I would watch a mini series based on Hillary Clinton’s life. I would watch one based on anyone who has of has had importance in American history.

  13. Jacob says:

    Ill wait for the movie about all the lies and cover ups. NBC should ditch MSNBC. The MS stands for microsoft right?

  14. Polly says:

    On the 2016 elections, I’m with John Oliver: it’s 3 fraking years away, so who cares!!!

    Anyways I’d watch this if it gets made, and i really hoped that Political Animals were renewed.

    • Ana says:

      In politics, 2016 is around the corner. Presidential elections are highly complex, exhaustive and lengthy processes that begin behind closed doors years before election night. And I too wish that Political Animals had been renewed. But it was too convoluted and soapy and it just had a hard time finding its audience, sadly.

      • Polly says:

        BS! it’s a competition: who puts on the bigger show and manages to say more things that the people likes than his opponent wins. They could’ve concentrate the whole thing in a few weeks and the results would’ve been the same.

        • Ana says:

          Wow, you really don’t understand how politics really work at all.

          • Polly says:

            I understand it so little that I can totally write the programs for the next 2 candidates!
            Republicans: Lower the taxes, support our troops, create (insert number here) million jobs, a (insert number here) points plan to relaunch economy, save the true american values that God taught us.
            Democrats: More equality and more services for the poor, let’s take our troops home now, create (insert number here) million jobs, a (insert number here) points plan to relaunch economy, new immigration policy to help people the honest people that are the engine of the new american economy.
            In 3 years, please I beg of you, tell me how far off I was ;)

          • Ana says:

            @ Polly
            Nope, can’t argue with that. You’ve got the talking points right. It’s always the same lip service from every politician. It becomes quite tedious. But that is what we see at face value. What goes on behind the scenes its what’s really disturbing. How the political machine really works has very little to do with governance so, in essence,.those talking points are only window dressing. They are pre-canned responses designed to provoke a desired effect among the party base.

    • Exactly. Three years. The problem is that the media and the parties got addicted to the horse race last year and now they can’t give it up. It’s irresponsible as h*ll because we still have the midterms to get through but those aren’t sexy enough.

    • Monica4185 says:

      Thank you a voice of reason. Is 3 years away, we are barely out of the last one, do we need to start with the next one right away? Politician need to concetrate on the issues at hand not on whether or not who is going to win the 2016 presidential election. American politics are a complete and totally mess. It freaking shameful.

      • Ana says:

        I agree with your statement wholeheartedly. Unfortunately, we the people don’t control the process. If the Democratic party and/or its partners want to put Hilary in the white House, they need to start framing the narrative now, especially because of her misteps. The same with Republicans. They need to find the right candidate and they have a lot of work to do to overcome their dismal approval ratings. So all in all, 2016 is really just around the corner in.the real world of politics.

  15. ragincajun says:

    Angela Bassett as the lead in CBS’ Secretary of State series please!!!

    With Tyne Daly as her Chief of Staff ;-)

  16. Charlie says:

    Do you really think the LOL party will win a vote in ’14 or ’16?

  17. Nick says:

    Just bring back Political Animals. Please.

  18. opus says:

    I cannot believe NBC is going to allow the RNC to blackmail them into not doing the Hillary miniseries. It is disgusting and stupid that the RNC is doing this and will only make those who want Hillary to run desire it even more. And, as far as CNN is concerned, they are becoming more and more pro-Republican, so it is unlikely their Hillary documentary is going to whitewash her career.

    • Drew says:

      Choosing not to do business with someone who is actively campaigning against you is not blackmail.

      The GOP would be stupid to take part in any debate hosted by a network that has decided to work against them and for their competition. That is how they wind up in debates where the moderators are answering questions for a candidate, or interviews where answers are edited in order to entirely change the meaning. It has been happening for years and the GOP is finally doing something about it. Good for them.

      This isn’t about being pro-GOP. If you think it is, you’re blind. This is about equality and allowing citizens to make up their own minds without the media deciding who will win and denying any news that might put that person’s campaign in jeopardy. We don’t need another Obama.

  19. RobD381 says:

    I don’t know how TVLine puts up with this nonsense. Everyone is calling everyone else names and… oh well, from the story I have to say NBC (Comcast) should be shot by tiny little men with tiny little arrows for being such cowards and giving in to the RNC. This should have been an opportunity for them to call on the government to make all debates free and public and non-network-demoninational. But then, there’s money, and greed. Never mind.
    Carry on your cat fight about…nothing.

    • Drew says:

      So not only do you think that the networks should be actively campaigning for one candidate (and thus twisting events and facts, making it difficult for the public to even find enough real information to think for themselves or decide for themselves), but you think that the government should step in and demand that the republicans take part in debates on networks that are actively campaigning against them?

      Why in the name of all things good and proper in this world would anyone agree to a debate on those networks, under those conditions? It was bad enough when they were distorting news, failing to report major news stories, and editing interviews in order to alter what candidates were saying in their answers. Now you think that they should just go nuts and openly campaign for Hillary while the republicans are forced to twiddle their thumbs and pretend that it’s all on the up-and-up?

      What logic is that? How do you justify that reasoning? Would you be just as cool with a network deciding to produce a TV series about the life of Ted Cruz (or any of the other republican potential runners), lovingly coddling him and leaving out any details that might make him look bad? Bending the facts and putting a nice polish on everything? That would be just as absurd!

      It amazes me what people are willing to accept when it’s all so their team can win. Who cares about ethics when you can get another vote, right?