I thought CJ's response of "Respect" was classy, given the lack of empathy in the questions being asked. Maybe it wasn't her place to scold them, but she certainly didn't sound "stupid."
I still don't understand why the First Lady morphed into a political position in the U.S. Why would she get a staff and weigh in on issues without having been elected or nominated to a position, but just by virtue of being married to someone who was elected? I imagine when women were completly shut out of politics, it was one of the rare woman close to power who could influence things, but now that women joined the debate with elected mandates, it seems incredibly patronising. First Ladies should be able to work and advocate for any cause they want to. But why would it be on the government's purse?
They usually have a staff irl anyway, because they can sometimes be just as busy and heavy-scheduled day-to-day as POTUS himself, and the First Lady/Gentleman can't just borrow the President's staff cause they're not just his personal team, they're also diplomatic attaches, civil servants with portfolios, party operatives, political advisors, etc. etc. The only real suspension of disbelief with this storyline was Abby being so persistent with being part of big discussions - in real life, a (sensible) First Lady/Gentleman would be knocked back almost instantly, get the message, and adjust their ideas back to the various organisations, causes, party events, and other areas that are usually their purview
@@a3bmediachannel2023 They are visible people with staff because they are public figures with public duties. It is very common around the world for wives of heads of state. Just look at royal families. They are goodwill ambassadors or the president and of the country, often attending events on their behalf. But they are also trusted confidants of their spouses and no doubt discuss the issues of the day. When they are as visible and accessible as the First Lady, sometimes they will be asked questions, and sometimes they will answer them. It's also worth remembering that this debuted in the Clinton era, when Hillary was one of the most politically involved First Ladies ever. Like staff, they get whatever power their husband is willing to delegate and they are willing to take on.
@@a3bmediachannel2023Exactly! It happened to Hilary in the 90s when she took on universal healthcare. Twenty years later Obama got it done. Part of the problem is the first spouse does have significant exposure, but unfortunately, no real power. We here in America want to be able to choose our own politicians not have them be chosen for us.
This scene is fantastic. “I’m not ready to jump into bed with him-making me one of the few people in my family who can say that.”
So often those who ask "are you calling me a liar?" should receive the answer, yes
True, but Sam’s lucky he didn’t say it since this wasn’t one of those times
Or the equally appropriate “Well, I ain’t calling you a truther!”
Sam's an idiot.
300 points is a lunch hour in 2024
I thought CJ's response of "Respect" was classy, given the lack of empathy in the questions being asked. Maybe it wasn't her place to scold them, but she certainly didn't sound "stupid."
She was annoyed that they got the better of her.
I remember when 350 was considered a big drop
Just wait... There are going to be more and bigger drops in the near future.
The stock market is much more of a bubble now than it was 20 years ago, how do you think the score just keeps on going up?
“Wall Street needs to trust me” what a loaded line said by Martin Sheen
If I'm remembering correctly, wasn't Jed being petty about this because Erlich was Abby's ex?
You remembered 100% right.
Yup. He waited a day on “Skippy” because 30 years ago, Ron was Abby’s boyfriend for NINE months (not 6🤣)
And why not, absolutely spot on from prez.
A little.
If I remember correctly....this is a fictional TV show...so it does not matter.
This channel needs to upload more clips from the earlier seasons before jumping to Season 6 and Season 7.
When was the last time we were lucky? Super Tuesday.
Fed Chair, or Chairman of the Federal Reserve, but not "Federal Chair"
This universe gets Bartlett, and we get Trump. Oy.
Awesome. Trump kicks azz!
Twice. Oyyy.
@@jcs1025 that's a good thing.
@@1cont yeah ok. No. Homophobia, racism, xenophobia, and misogyny - none of those were dealbreakers for you. Deplorable.
@@1cont It's a good thing if you're a Russian.
I still don't understand why the First Lady morphed into a political position in the U.S. Why would she get a staff and weigh in on issues without having been elected or nominated to a position, but just by virtue of being married to someone who was elected? I imagine when women were completly shut out of politics, it was one of the rare woman close to power who could influence things, but now that women joined the debate with elected mandates, it seems incredibly patronising. First Ladies should be able to work and advocate for any cause they want to. But why would it be on the government's purse?
They usually have a staff irl anyway, because they can sometimes be just as busy and heavy-scheduled day-to-day as POTUS himself, and the First Lady/Gentleman can't just borrow the President's staff cause they're not just his personal team, they're also diplomatic attaches, civil servants with portfolios, party operatives, political advisors, etc. etc.
The only real suspension of disbelief with this storyline was Abby being so persistent with being part of big discussions - in real life, a (sensible) First Lady/Gentleman would be knocked back almost instantly, get the message, and adjust their ideas back to the various organisations, causes, party events, and other areas that are usually their purview
@@a3bmediachannel2023 They are visible people with staff because they are public figures with public duties. It is very common around the world for wives of heads of state. Just look at royal families. They are goodwill ambassadors or the president and of the country, often attending events on their behalf.
But they are also trusted confidants of their spouses and no doubt discuss the issues of the day. When they are as visible and accessible as the First Lady, sometimes they will be asked questions, and sometimes they will answer them. It's also worth remembering that this debuted in the Clinton era, when Hillary was one of the most politically involved First Ladies ever. Like staff, they get whatever power their husband is willing to delegate and they are willing to take on.
Jacqueline Kennedy, for example. Was a complete industry by herself, she was more well-known and popular than her husband in many countries.
@@a3bmediachannel2023Exactly! It happened to Hilary in the 90s when she took on universal healthcare. Twenty years later Obama got it done. Part of the problem is the first spouse does have significant exposure, but unfortunately, no real power. We here in America want to be able to choose our own politicians not have them be chosen for us.
@@a3bmediachannel2023 You haven't heard the stories of Melania…
Second !
First