Exclusive
Peter vs Hillary

Good Wife to Pit Peter vs. Hillary in Season 7 Presidential Showdown

A potential Joe Biden candidacy may be the least of Hillary Clinton’s problems in her race to secure the Democratic nomination for presdient.

Good Wife exec producer Robert King tells TVLine that art will indeed imitate real-life politics when Peter launches his own bid for the Democratic ticket. “If Peter runs, he is running against Hillary,” he confirms, conceding that it’s “amazing” CBS is “letting us do that.”

King adds that Season 7’s campaign storyline will parallel the official primary timeline so that when “the Iowa Caucus happens [on Feb. 1], it’s going to happen in our show. We’re trying to parallel what’s happening on our show with what’s happening in reality.”

Of course, the bold storytelling strategy presents inherent challenges. “The difficult thing for us is we started writing these scripts in June, so you’re always kind of guessing where things are going,” King concedes. “And we’re stunned in politics how things change overnight. We’re not sure if Biden will enter the race at this point. We have the ability to ADR some lines in if that’s necessary, but we’re kind of playing the betting game at this point.”

Depending on how things play out on the real political stage, King reserves the right to veer “off from reality at some point” (i.e., Hillary winning the Democratic nod doesn’t preclude Peter doing the same). One thing that does seem unlikely: any mention of rogue republican rabble-rouser Donald Trump. Explains fellow EP Michelle King: “Peter is running on the democratic ticket, so at this point there’s not been reason to bring [him] up.”

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

53 Comments
  1. LeeSP says:

    What a stupid idea – insignificant state governor with a dirty reputation for President. Who thought that The Good Wife needed more of Peter? Why are they still married? It is 2015, no one cares if the governor gets a divorce.

    I stopped watching the show at the end of last season when Kalinda departed.

    • Lizo says:

      You’re kidding right? If a Governor and/or Presidential candidate got a divorce, America would lose its friggen mind. It’ll be interesting to see how they handle it on Scandal, but in real life…wow, nope.

      • LeeSP says:

        The several governors, congressmen and Senators in America have gotten divorced while in office and still gotten re-elected to office. It is not that big a deal.

        Please look up American political history.

    • mike says:

      The idea might change, maybe they could defend Hillary in court from charges brought by the FBI for “emailgate.”

    • Lyn says:

      Wasn’t Bill Clinton an insignificant state governor with a dirty reputation? I’m confused.

  2. Geo says:

    Ummm, yay?

    Sarcasm aside, does anyone think this sounds like a good idea? What the heck is going on with “The Good Wife” lately?

    • Jeri says:

      Nothing will overshadow the lies told to viewers re: Archies exit & Julianna refusing to act with her. I don’t believe I can care about their plots any longer. Any guests will most likely be green/blue screen.

      • How are you certain it wasn’t Archie who refused to act with Julianna? This is tabloid fodder. Repeat to yourself, “It’s just a show, I should really just relax.”

        • Jeri says:

          Julianna is a producer, Tiger. I know it’s a TV show, a former favorite and I think I have the right to be disappointed with them after viewing from the start. I don’t need to be corrected for my feelings Tiger. This is a comment section for the stories, thus I am posting my opinion. Fear not, I am not in danger of a heart attack over this.

          • The title of producer has various and wide-ranging meanings. It could be a promotion with a pay bump, it could be a position in the writers room, an empty title (what did McConaughey and Harrelson have to do with True Detective this season? Both are credited as EPs), a network position designed to foster the alignment of network and creative direction, etc. When the lead actor of a show is a producer, it’s mostly in recognition of their creative input but not as a participant in the writing process. For example, Kiefer Sutherland was made a producer during 24. He always had feedback to exchange, but he couldn’t override the director or EPs. He thought the cougar was a terrible idea, but they did it anyway. Just because Julianna is a producer and Archie is not does not mean the Kings would accommodate either over the other. If your scenario with Julianna being a disappointing person was true, Archie wouldn’t just be sort of not really marginalized over the years, she would have been fired. Maybe Julianna really is a bad person or maybe Archie is difficult to work with and everything is justified. What I personally tire of is people using unsubstantiated rumors and logical leaps to pick a person to blame and then hold a public grudge against that person over what basically amounts to nothing. Maybe they couldn’t be professional enough to shoot a scene together. Maybe they perform better separately. Whatever the situation is, it’s over and I refuse to get angry.

      • Becky says:

        Why in the world do you care? They are both excellent actresses on the show. Who cares about their relationship in real life? It’s not as if they’re friends of yours and you have to make a choice who to support. How can you possibly have any ‘skin in this game’? I don’t get it.

  3. DL says:

    This show just keeps going further and further off the rails. I just don’t get it.

  4. Herman1959 says:

    They are officially out of storylines.

    • David4 says:

      Maybe Bernie Sanders will show up some point. haha

      Wasn’t there a seven year plan? Clearly not if this is the best they can do.

  5. Steven says:

    Interesting. Hillary wouldn’t be able to appear on the show though right?

    • Andrea says:

      I think the rule is if one candidate is allowed to appear, all the others must be given the same opportunity. Same reason that NBC had to part ways with Trump.

      • NBC parted ways with Trump because he said something really racist and is generally an awful douchebag.

        • Steven says:

          While all that is true, there is also a rule about giving Presidential candidates more screen time than others.

          • I’m aware of some such rule, but I’m unsure if it actually means anything. Years ago, Al Sharpton had a fledgling presidential campaign and chose to host SNL. I forget the exact numbers, something like 20-60% of NBC affiliates did not run the first airing of that episode. Whichever states his name appeared on a ballot. Equal time doesn’t apply to any production that classifies itself as a news program, so any candidate can appear without requiring the others’ presence on a broad range of shows anywhere between Today and Mythbusters.

  6. daviddavid says:

    This show is totally going off the rails

  7. Liz985 says:

    No. Just no.

  8. LK says:

    First term governor who spent time in jail runs for president? Well I guess if Trump can do it… shouldnt they resolve the whole fraudulent voting storyline from his governors race first? They seem to keep putting that off.

  9. Rob says:

    But just remember Peter isn’t ACTUALLY running for President, guys. That’s not how TV works. So don’t be surprised when you show up to vote for him and he’s not on the ticket!

  10. jason says:

    Still not satisfied with their explanation of Kalicia-gate, so there’s no reserves left to give on this ludicrous plot line.

  11. smartysenior says:

    Sometimes when the writers run out of ideas it’s best to just end the show. Maybe more Peter will be fun for awhile but it isn’t the show we used to like so much. We loved the ensemble of terrific actors with multiple story lines in the back ground of great legal drama. The cast had a magical chemistry and somehow it all got lost along the way of becoming the Alicia show.

  12. Jerry says:

    Who cares.

  13. John Davis says:

    After that stupid interview when they said NOTHING about Kalicia-gate, I really don’t care anymore about this show.

  14. asm says:

    Ugh, who cares anymore about this show after that interview with the kings.

  15. Julia says:

    Sorry…not interested in more Peter and definitely no more politics after the trainwreck I consider last season. Will give the show a couple of episodes this year and I may be out. I miss the old law focused show. :(

  16. Luis says:

    S6 really seemed to veer off course with the State’s Attorney’s race, and now the Kings want to run a pseudo-reality presidential campaign. I only have so much time, even with the DVR and I hate the idea of dropping TGW, but this does not bode well.

  17. Bob Backus says:

    So, will the writers be using this to expose the real short comings of Clinton, her incompetence, corruption etc., or will this be another white-washing of this horrible candidate for president as they try to prove how much better the corrupt Clinton is than their corrupt pretend candidate?

  18. Diz says:

    How stupid.

  19. Kailani says:

    This reminds me of when How I Met Your Mother went way too long past their expiration date. Exact same kind of thing.

  20. Becky says:

    I may be the only one on board for this. I’m a political junkie, so this is good for me. And, I trust the Kings to do it well. This also is the reason for bringing in Margo Martindale to work with Eli Gold. I can’t wait for those scenes.

    I’m also excited about Jeffrey Dean Morgan joining the show as a regular. I think this season is going to be great. I’ve always wanted Alicia to get back with Peter eventually, but I may change my mind with the addition of JDM.

    • Lizo says:

      I really like it too. It’s creative and it’ll be neat to see a show follow real time events. Plus it’s probably a neat experiment for the writers. I’m less excited about it being Peter, he’s just not a compelling character. I’m excited to see Eli manage a presidential campaign though.
      .
      I’m *also* excited for JDM to join.

  21. Liz985 says:

    Considering the possibility that HRC may not even *be* the Democrat candidate based on the latest scandal she’s inflicted on herself, this storyline could get old and irrelevant very quickly.

  22. LynnH says:

    Terrible idea. Does the show plan on white washing HRC’s many scandals? Peter is a fictional candidate. His opponent should be fictional as well. I’ve been watching Good Wife reruns on CBS and when the show puts juicy court cases front and center the show is amazing. How I wish the new season would be a return to the show’s roots instead of another contrived political drama.

  23. B says:

    well at least now it’ll be an easy decision for me to delete this show from my dvr!

  24. MJ says:

    Enough with the politics. This is a complete turn off. That said, I don’t think Peter is corrupt enough to handle Hillary.

  25. T says:

    The Kings need to #FeeltheBern.

  26. Tina says:

    I’m just about done with this show. Used to be a favorite.

  27. Paloma says:

    I would watch a series only about Peter and Eli running for President. That would be pretty fantastic. As for the rest of “The Good Wife,” I’m done with it. I haven’t enjoyed it since they kept sending Cary to jail. And Alicia’s political run was meh. I really don’t want to watch her start again.

  28. Christian says:

    Too “stunty.” Their own timeline would be sufficient without real-life politics interfering in the process of storytelling. Not only that, but it will damage the timeless quality of the show’s survival into future generations. I am getting more and more suspect of the Kings. They don’t really appear to take this show as seriously as their viewers do. Last season was the worst ever, with sloppy storytelling and too much vagueness blanketing the show: more emphasis on plot than character; the mishandling of Robin’s absence from the story, not to mention the disappearance of Taye Diggs and Nathan lane without any explanation; the injustice done to Matthew Goode; and most glaringly, the personal issues between two actresses spilling over into the professional side of things. This show seriously needs to consider bowing out before it is kicked out.