S03.E13: Chapter 39

[Higgins]

Claire doesn't have a conscience and I don't think that it was intended to portray that she does. I think she wants the glory for herself. She is a sociopath just as Frank is, maybe worse.

[Nanrad]

Completely agree. Certainly to each his own but I too am a bit baffled by this huge moral outrage over Rachel's death when my feeling is "what show have we been watching again?" As you stated, this show from day one has been about these awful, horrible people, hungry for power who will step on and destroy any and everyone in their quest for it. Nothing has really changed. 

 

Rachel's story, sad to say, was always going to end badly. If it wasn't from the lifestyle she had before she decided to get out, she definitely signed her death sentence when she fully got herself tangled in that web. No, I'm not saying her death was warranted and not awful, just as Russo and Zoe's were. But just that we all knew, or at least I did, where it was going to go. She stayed alive a lot longer because Stamper developed some twisted love/hate thing for her and hid her entire existence from Frank because had he and Claire known about her all this time, she'd have been dead a lot sooner. 

 

And murders aside, look at all the other people destroyed like that poor journalist guy, the President, etc. This whole show has been all about these horrible people and the lives and tragedy they leave in their wake in their quest for power. There's no morality anywhere there. It's a show about unlikable, horrible people doing horrible things. And the main appeal of watching till the end, at least for me, is for when the delicate House of Cards they've built come crashing down and they do get their just end. Unfortunately it's clear it won't come until the show is ending.

I agree. Rachel was supposed to have been killed long before Doug developed his infatuation and before she got involved with her former girlfriend. I was sad to see her die because she just wanted a better life, but she became involved with a group of very powerful, dangerous people. They were going to kill her no matter what.

 

what was it that Doug learned from being around his brother and kids, other than it allowed him to get sober? He went right back to Underwood and his old life afte

What was the point of Doug sleeping with his physical therapist, who then left?

Remy getting pulled over, just a moral epiphany about how much he loves Jackie?

Even the tibetan monks, I think they were, it was a beautiful structure they made, amazing, but still not sure how that brought he and claire together again briefly. Just a shared experience?

IMO, it seems as if Doug's road to having a better life was all an act; his only focus has always been the Underwoods, specifically Frank. He was never truly rehabilitated. In the case of Rachel, I think he wanted to let her get away because he'd come to terms with his obsession and he felt for her situation, but he's loyal to Frank and it's what Frank wanted in order to truly prove his loyalty (and maybe even get back at Doug for letting Heather find out the true nature of Claire's abortion). 

 

Regarding the sand art by the monk's perhaps it was saying that all that time and hard work can be washed away in an instant?

 

Remy traded money for power and was still treated like just another black man. He went to Jackie because he truly felt connected to her, but power truly means nothing to him, which is why he couldn't stomach it in the end. Rey wouldn't have able to do what Frank did to Claire--telling her to step down as ambassador. It hurt Frank, but it was necessary. Rey isn't cut out for the games and the pull over was just one of many things that set him off.

 

I get Claire's storyline this season -- all the beats, how it was written and how it was played -- but I just don't buy it.  I am incredulous that a woman who had dedicated her entire life since she was 22 to her voraciously ambitious husband would be surprised now, 28 years later, that OMG IT IS ALL ABOUT HIS CAREER.  I am not at all saying I disagree with the sentiment -- I think it's a shame how, in general, many women devote themselves to their husbands' goals and seem to have no life of their own -- but it's just that Claire always seemed to be A-OK with the deal between her and Francis before.  WTF is she doing crying foul now?!?!  It seems to me that she never talked to him, never actually told him what was going on with her, made many moves on her own that backfired, made some moves on her own that worked, then attacked him, then threatened him, then he threatened her b/c he was like, "WTH I need you to do what I know you can and what will work for us, as per usual, as per our entire lives together", and then she walked out.

 

Why didn't she lay out some terms in front of him?  Why didn't she say, Give me this and I'll give you that?  Why didn't she throw a fit much, much earlier and say, This is not working for me the way it used to?  Keep in mind this is a couple who told one another minute details about the affairs they were having with other people, to have a good laugh about it!! (I'll never forget when Claire told Zoe about the spider that Frank killed in Zoe's apartment -- LOL Zoe, no you don't know her husband better than she does!)

 

I feel like Claire Underwood for two seasons was really really different than most women characters and than most women, period.  Just as Frank is meant to be so uniquely and supremely evil, and their marriage was supposed to be the only one of its kind, so Claire, too, seemed like the only one of her kind.  Claire and Frank were two killers (literally and figuratively) who had found one another, could only ever have been themselves by joining forces, and forged a marital bond that was wholly separate from any conventional norm of marriage.  

 

But this season Claire became somehow representative of the rich white unfulfilled under-loved under-appreciated American woman.  In Claire's monologues I could just hear all the women that I personally know who just feel absolutely nothing for their husbands after 25+ years of marriage b/c they feel it's been all about him all these years, leaving nothing for them.  I sympathize with my friends who are going through this, and I do think there are big structural problems in gender relations and societal expectations that make it hard for women to have their own thing while their husband goes out and grows a big career.  BUT BUT BUT I never thought Claire was supposed to be like "those women" -- I think she would think of all other women like that, as "those women who don't know wth they're doing, what they signed on for."  Claire of S1 and S2 would sneer and look down her nose at women who weren't smart enough to make deliberate choices and plan out their life ambitions.

 

Claire this season, by becoming more "relatable" to many women, just lost the thing that made her so distinct in seasons past, which was her very distinctiveness, the fact that she insisted on standing apart from the herd, being like no other woman she had never known, being completely herself, standing beside a life partner who, like her, has no peer, is like no one else, in a marriage that is wholly sui generis.  

 

I agree 100%. I don't get this Claire because she's lived this life for decades and seems completely okay with that. She was the one pulling away from Frank and being passive aggressive when he was trying to talk about shit, and then she blames it all on him. If she wanted her own thing, she needed to do it herself because there was only so much he could do. Hell, didn't Hilary have a law career before Bill took office??? Or, she was at least involved in many things. Frank kept his side of the deal and I was on his side in the argument.

 

Bias: I love the Doug storyline

 

Because Doug was, imo, indulging himself. In his twisted mind, love and affection are the true drug and alcohol is his medicine. Which they hit us over the head literally with the dirty syringe he fished out of the trash (ew). When it was time to work he "sobered up" and locked all those newfound feelings away.

 

I think the physical therapist was another example of how, if he walked away, Doug could actually have a pretty freaking awesome life. He got great job offers, has a great extended family, has hot women fitting his aesthetic flinging themselves at him. It shows how truly insane he is. He's not some creepo skulking in shadows, scaring everyone off. It shows what being an "ally" to Frank really means, and just how stupid everyone who enters into superficial alliances with him actually are. Including Seth, who thought he was rooster in charge until Doug came back and unceremoniously kicked his ass out in about three days.

 

I thought the pull over was to "reset" Remy. Season one Remy was all about the money and rejected political power, stating astutely that "power never lasts". His affection for Jackie sucked him back into Frank's orbit because he thought he could protect her. Once she dumped him, he probably kept going from sheer inertia and enjoyment of being Frank's no. 2. The pullover reminded him that outside of Frank's office he's still just a black man to everyone else. The power he thought he had was meaningless in the real world. So what happens when Frank loses power? Remy basically made no progress, and simply regressed back to his old self so we could see him repeat the exact same cycle that drove him away from Frank before. I expected more savvy from him, tbqh, he ended being kind of dumb and let himself be manipulated by just about everybody.

 

The monk thing showed how far they'd drifted apart. This was a couple where Frank told Claire when and how he killed a freaking spider in his mistress's apartment. There was not a single detail they did not know about each other (they thought). And now they didn't even know how the other felt about a month(s?)-long, attention calling, project right in front of their faces.

I agree with this also well. Couldn't have said it better myself. 

[Fen]

Well, that was a rather heavy hour.

 

Rachel was a goner the moment Gavin tried to use her as leverage.  Doug knows exactly how that game is played - he's probably done it himself over the years.  To him, she had become an untenable risk that had to be eliminated.  When he met with Frank, and showed him pictures of the corpse, Frank outright asked if he had done it.  He's killed for him before.  This is what he would have done way back in season 1 had he not developed feelings. 

 

Overall, I think Doug's story arc has been great.  It would have been predictable to give him a straightforward redemption arc.  Equally so just to watch him spiral.  As it is, we watched him become stronger, watched him improve his life in significant ways - connect with his family, demonstrate trust in Seth: yet still retain the capacity for utter brutality when necessary.  It might be hard to stomach, but it's realistic and complex and I enjoyed watching it.

 

 

 I don't get this Claire because she's lived this life for decades and seems completely okay with that. She was the one pulling away from Frank and being passive aggressive when he was trying to talk about shit, and then she blames it all on him. If she wanted her own thing, she needed to do it herself because there was only so much he could do. Hell, didn't Hilary have a law career before Bill took office??? Or, she was at least involved in many things. Frank kept his side of the deal and I was on his side in the argument

 

Agree completely.  I was beyond tired of Claire this season.  The passive-aggression, the lack of communication, the various vacillations.  The endless navel-gazing about her imagined alternative lives.  Sorry - but no.  Frank did not force her into the life.  She made choices.  I'm not buying this imagery of him bleeding her dry, either, or diminishing her in some way.  She asked him to support her in her bid to become ambassador.  He did it.  She screwed that up, so she asked him to simply give her the job.  He did it.  He valued and trusted her judgment to the extent that it clouded his own.  At every turn, he told her how important she was to him, how there was no White House without her, how the people loved her more than him.  What more does she want?  She was given everything she asked for.  She refuses to own her decisions and acknowledge responsibility for her own life.  it's easy to sit back and weave a pretty picture about what a magnificent politician, or devoted mother, or skilful diplomat you might have been.  What takes guts is actually going out there and trying it

 

I don't know if the show was trying to make a wider point about the impossibility of new lives, of becoming someone different.  Remy said that was what he was going to do, but the last we saw him he was with Jackie again.  Doug could have left the game, but chose to stay.  Heather Dunbar claimed to be a shining new force, but was willing to cut a sleazy deal with Frank.  Jackie's new married life is a sham.  The over-sharing mother emphasized that her fantasy of murdering her child and running away was just that, a fantasy.  Gavin has not escaped his gaolers.  Rachel could not escape her identity.  Mad Men says it better: "There is no fresh start.  Lives carry on."  If this was the intentional message, then Claire's leaving looks doomed to failure.

 

I still miss Mendoza.

Edited March 12, 2015 by Fen

[Ottis]

Claire's choice reminds me of the woman who wrote Eat.Pray.Love, and I dislike it just as much. When you go into a relationship with a shared understanding, and then you decide at some point you want something different, you don't abandon what you agreed to do without at least some discussion and compromise (barring abuse, of course). Claire has decided she took a wrong turn? Fine. But all she has, is due to the partnership she has forged with Frank. And Frank is currently in the middle of a finite event - a campaign. At the very least, help him succeed with reelection, then pursue whatever it is you feel you must pursue. The way she handles the whole thing is so selfish. I feel little sympathy for her.

 

And that's without even getting into the things she tried to do and failed. She is responsible for where she is, too. It wasn't all "Francis" and taking a back seat to his desires.

 

Doug's turn just makes no sense in the context of the season. His redemption, wasted. He is who he was. Oh well.

 

I think HoC should spend more time with some other characters in S4.

[Haleth]

On a happier note Michael Kelly was on Ellen the other day and revealed that the children playing his neice and nephew are actually his own kids.  They had trouble getting his 2yo son to "act."  LOL

Edited March 13, 2015 by Haleth

[Ottis]

America Works? That's what his grand purpose was? All the machinations, all the behind-the-scenes scheming, the murder(s!)... was all the means to justify the ends of reforming social security? That's what Frank did all this for?

 

 

That quote came from a post in the All Episodes thread, but that thread seems dead compared to this one so I'll try to bring it over, since the last ep of a season is often the thread that discusses the series.

 

I agree with that post, and have struggled throughout this season on what exactly Frank is doing. He wanted power, he has it ... so what is his goal? In fact, aside from having power, I've never been clear on what Frank's long-term plan is. I don't understand his political beliefs, they seem to mix and match items traditionally viewed as conservative or liberal in the real world. He doesn't seem bent on something like American expansion. He doesn't want to be rich any more than anyone else who is in charge. What has been the point of all this? Simply to conquer and crush his enemies?

 

I think maybe this issue is why season 3 was so odd. He won, and now neither he nor his writers seem to know what to do with him. So we turned to Claire and Doug.

[WearyTraveler]

He wants a big place in history.  Much like FDR with the New Deal, he wants AmericaWorks to become his legacy.  He doesn't want to be just another president in a long list to be memorized by students in years to come.  He wants to be one of THE presidents that people remember on their own.  He wants to transform the system, not for the good of the people, but to ensure he gets a place of honor in History.

[atticdrama]

 

Completely agree. Certainly to each his own but I too am a bit baffled by this huge moral outrage over Rachel's death when my feeling is "what show have we been watching again?" As you stated, this show from day one has been about these awful, horrible people, hungry for power who will step on and destroy any and everyone in their quest for it. Nothing has really changed.

I'm not morally outraged over Rachel's death and definitely saw it coming, but the tone and style in which it was presented was, I felt, a stylistic departure for the show. I don't watch HOC for stalker/woman in danger porn. It felt exploitative, and though they spared us her actual death, her terror and suffering was quite affecting. 

 

I see Rachel as just another woman that was ground out of existence, that in the end was only her body, and now that body is rotting in the desert. No one will care or ever know, probably. It's nice to think that women she lived with might do something, but they were all marginal/poor as well. She had a marginal existence when she met Russo and things went from bad to worse. The moral, if there is one, is that if you're poor and a woman and a whore don't make one mistake, because you'll end up dead. Hell, one could argue she never made any mistakes, she was simply a victim of circumstance.  If you're rich and white and a man and have power you can make ENDLESS mistakes and nothing ever comes of it. 

 

While I enjoyed aspects of Stamper's storyline I the show never gave a compelling reason for his obsession with Rachel. It just was presented as a given. So he's obsessed but then he has to kill her because she Knows Things. And then he has to kill her, but he's sad? He's happy cause it's revenge? He's, what?  It was all too muddled to care very much beyond hoping Rachel got away, and given this show's history, we all knew a happy ending wasn't in the ---- cards. 

[Fen]

I'm not morally outraged over Rachel's death and definitely saw it coming, but the tone and style in which it was presented was, I felt, a stylistic departure for the show. I don't watch HOC for stalker/woman in danger porn. It felt exploitative, and though they spared us her actual death, her terror and suffering was quite affecting. 

 

It didn't strike me as exploitative stalker 'porn'.  Rachel was far from anonymous - we had been introduced to the character back in season 1.  The show opened by showing us the new life she had built, and watching her interact with others.  In this particular episode, the her perspective and Doug's perspective were offered pretty evenly.   Her terror was realistic - she's bound and gagged in the back of a van with a man she knows is obsessively controlling of her.  Even so - she didn't just wail and scream, she had a voice and tried to reason with him.  It was far from 'woman in danger' porn.  The fact that we weren't shown the details of her death further works against the notion of exploitation.

 

If you're rich and white and a man and have power you can make ENDLESS mistakes and nothing ever comes of it.

 

Frank's marriage just imploded, threatening his life-long dream of being elected president.  President Walker was manipulated out of office and his marriage deliberately weakened.  Raymond Tusk lost his power over Walker, and was so beaten down by losing his trust that he meekly acquiesced at that hearing.  Doug ended up face down in a forest with his head caved in.  Mistakes have consequences for everyone.

 

 

While I enjoyed aspects of Stamper's storyline I the show never gave a compelling reason for his obsession with Rachel. It just was presented as a given.

 

I agree - you really had to work at getting something from it.  For me, back in seasons 1 and 2, Doug said a couple things I thought were telling.  First, that he preferred to have nothing 'extra' or messy in his life because it made things 'blurry' - which was backed up by what we saw of his barren apartment and estranged family this season.  Secondly, that his relationship with Rachel was 'messed up', that she was 'like his mother, or sister'.  What I wheedled from that is that Doug kept his life intently focused on work (possibly because Frank forgave him after his initial brush with alcoholism?).  Then, due to the situation with Rachel, he was suddenly seeing a woman on a semi-regular basis outside work.  The lines got pretty blurry pretty fast after than - and she was every female figure he didn't have in his life: wife, mother, sister, daughter.  He actually looked pained when she offered to make him something to eat - that little glimpse of intimacy, of domesticity, knocking him totally off-balance.  It was about what she represented to him - as we saw when he couldn't actually tell Gavin a damn thing about her.

Edited March 13, 2015 by Fen

[missy jo]

fen Rachel was a goner the moment Gavin tried to use her as leverage.  Doug knows exactly how that game is played - he's probably done it himself over the years.  To him, she had become an untenable risk that had to be eliminated.  When he met with Frank, and showed him pictures of the corpse, Frank outright asked if he had done it.

 

 

Thank you. That's a great explanation of something I didn't understand very well.

 

I agree with that post, and have struggled throughout this season on what exactly Frank is doing. He wanted power, he has it ... so what is his goal?

 

 

He wants a big place in history.  Much like FDR with the New Deal, he wants AmericaWorks to become his legacy.

 

 

Yes, the first seasons of the show he was clear that power is more important than money. (That's true for me as well, but I'm not a psychopath - I promise!). Now that he's President, he's talked about "legacy."

 

Claire questioned why legacy was important since they didn't have children - who were they leaving it for - but yeah, Frank wants to be in the history books.

[Quiche]

Actually, I'm on Claire's side and glad she left "Francis".  He was the weak one, letting the Russian president walk all over him.  That is where the crack appeared in the marriage.

 

All Frank saw was his ambition, and he sold-out Claire for a quick win.  He devalued Claire.  Now let him keep the White House without her!

 

Doug is a psycho.  So is Frank.  Let's not forget that we saw Frank kill with his own hands two people.  These two belong in adjoining prison cells.  

 

This is now Claire's moment of truth.  This season we saw a decent, human side of her.  But is her leaving Frank just a ploy?  Does she still lust for the power he can have?  She sold-out half of her life for lust of power.  Will she continue to sell herself for ambition, power and status?  

[Mattipoo]

Ugh! Too much time was spent on Doug this season. He is a truly repulsive human being, both inside and out. And Claire is a hypocrite. She fucked up her UN ambassador job and then had the gall to blame Frank for not giving her an equal role in the relationship. Looking forward to seeing them both get their comeuppances in season 4.

Edited March 14, 2015 by Mattipoo

[Quiche]

Ugh! Too much time was spent on Doug this season. He is a truly repulsive human being, both inside and out. And Claire is a hypocrite. She fucked up her UN ambassador job and then had the gall to blame Frank for not giving her an equal role in the relationship. Looking forward to seeing them both get their comeuppances in season 4.

 

I agree with the part on Douglas.  The lousy parts of the season were about him, and his scenes ate up endless time.  Frankly, I wished he had died at the end of Season 2.  

[CleoCaesar]

The moral, if there is one, is that if you're poor and a woman and a whore don't make one mistake, because you'll end up dead.

 

That's reaching a bit.

 

If you're rich and white and a man and have power you can make ENDLESS mistakes and nothing ever comes of it.

 

The whole show is Frank screwing people over, most of whom are rich white men. Not to mention it's called House of Cards, implying that Frank's reign of terror is going to eventually collapse.

 

This show is full of gray, and full of awful, miserable, manipulative people doing bad things to others. I can't see how one extracts an anti-social justice agenda that the show is allegedly pushing.

[Quiche]

Actually, Frank Underwood has been an utter failure of President.  He did not achieve one success.  

[shelley1234]

While I enjoyed aspects of Stamper's storyline I the show never gave a compelling reason for his obsession with Rachel. It just was presented as a given. So he's obsessed but then he has to kill her because she Knows Things. And then he has to kill her, but he's sad? He's happy cause it's revenge? He's, what?  It was all too muddled to care very much beyond hoping Rachel got away, and given this show's history, we all knew a happy ending wasn't in the ---- cards. 

 

I'd make the case that Doug's obsession with Rachel doesn't even rate in comparison to his obsession with Frank and THAT is why she is dead.  Frank wanted her silenced FOR GOOD and Doug knew it.  That's why he turned around....for Frank.  

[greenbean]

What I really didn't like about the Stamper and Rachel storyline, is that they built Rachel up, just to kill her off. When they started showing her life; living in that house, helping the girl get her papers, working, getting her new identity etc.. I knew she was dead. She was being portrayed as sympathetic and with hope for her future, so of course the show was going to take that away for "dramatic" effect. This is what felt exploitative, the way they dragged out her death was unnecessary. From the point where she got into the van, I forwarded through the other scenes. It felt to indulgent. The whole Doug arc was such a bore.

 

I don't get Remy and Jackie, I don't see them as this awesome lovestruck couple. I didn't even realise things were that serious until this season.

 

Frank and Claire. I don't believe Claire has grown a conscience, she's just not happy with her position in the relationship. She does not have the power she thought she would have. The show was hinting at her running for President.

 

I thought this season was a bit preachy on some issues, and taking a political bias. Which I didn't like, but now that Frank is in the White House, I guess that can't be avoided.

 

That artwork by the monks was gorgeous!

Edited March 15, 2015 by greenbean

[Maysie]

 

Frank and Claire. I don't believe Claire has grown a conscience, she's just not happy with her position in the relationship. She does not have the power she thought she would have. The show was hinting at her running for President.

 

Claire's "conscience" bothered me because I felt we were being led to believe she was developing one after the guy hung himself. But then it seemed to disappear and reappear in ways I can't quite articulate. That's one of my problems with the season -- she seemed to be all over the map and frankly, the only thing I could get from her consistently was her own ambition. I don't buy that she has no options (which is what I was picking up from all this) -- after all, she was successful when she was running the non-profit. Yes, she crashed and burned at the UN thing. I think that could have been a viable thing for her to do after Frank's first term, whether he had won or not. All she had to do was get involved in some sort of "appropriate" cause (human trafficking, safe drinking water, disease management -- what have you -- that would have bolstered her credibility in dealing with international issues and aid groups that had political ramifications) for the duration of Frank's term and then moved upward from there.

 

When they showed her sitting in his chair in the oval office, it definitely felt like she was trying it on for size. And for the life of me, I don't know why she would think she should be sitting in that chair. Maybe it's supposed to be channeling all the sacrifices she made for Frank to get to that chair, but he'd likely have ended up there with or without her. I think he's just that focused on it. I sense the desire for that kind of power is new for Claire.

 

I will say this: when they had their confrontation in the oval office, I really felt like if he hadn't been president and didn't expect her ass out on the campaign trail with him, he'd have knocked her ten ways til Sunday. But he couldn't risk such a thing, so he had to reign himself in. At least that's how it seemed to me.

 

The Underwoods were their own worst enemies this season.

[Misty79]

I hated this last episode, I really did. I don't watch this show for creepy serial killer/stalker rubbish, that's the sort of thing I avoid at all costs on television. This show really diminished itself going down the well worn path of having a twenty-something attractive young woman murdered like that. Are there people (men?) out there that get off on this stuff? Stamper is vile. It just felt totally unnecessary to me. 

 

I'm not sure I'll watch the next season. I enjoyed the middle of the season when the show was revolving around geopolitics and interaction with Russia but overall the show lacked the originality and depth it displayed in previous seasons. It felt like I was watching a slightly darker West Wing. 

Edited March 16, 2015 by Misty79

[WearyTraveler]

I hated this last episode, I really did. I don't watch this show for creepy (1) serial killer/stalker rubbish, that's the sort of thing I avoid at all costs on television. This show really diminished itself (2) going down the well worn path of having a twenty-something attractive young woman murdered like that.  (3) Are there people (men?) out there that get off on this stuff? (4) Stamper is vile. It just felt totally unnecessary to me. 

 

Bold and numbers are mine, so I can orderly address these points in your post without having to quote every sentence separately.

 

(1) There are no serial killers on this show.  You can say that Frank, Claire and Stamper are sociopaths, as they exhibit many of the traits of the condition, but no one on this show is a serial killer.  According to the FBI a serial murder is "The unlawful killing of two or more victims by the same offender(s), in separate events.".  Since Doug has only killed one person, the term serial does not apply to him.  As for the stalking, I'd say it was more prominent last season than this season.

 

(2) I think that when it comes to murder, this is an equal opportunity show.  Frank killed Russo in season 1 and Russo was a white male in his early forties (maybe late thirties).  I believe the point being made with these killings is different from the types of shows you mention because the goal is not to portray a serial killer, or show murders in every episode.  The point is the lengths people will go to for power, which includes destroying people, manipulating people, lying, and in its most extreme form, murder.  In this case Doug knew that unless he killed Rachel for good, he was never going to get into Frank's graces ever again.  He was supposed to have dealt with that situation last season and he didn't.  It almost cost him his life.  As long as Rachel is somewhere out there, she can change her mind and destroy Frank.  If Doug goes back to Frank without killing Rachel he has two options, he either tells Frank that Rachel is alive, which Frank will not approve; or he lies and says he killed her, which places Doug in a constant risk.  The moment Rachel resurfaces again and Frank discovers the lie Doug is done.

 

(3) Yes there are.  Men and women, I suppose.

 

(4) Yes.  Doug is absolutely vile.

[Higgins]

Claire's "conscience" bothered me because I felt we were being led to believe she was developing one after the guy hung himself. But then it seemed to disappear and reappear in ways I can't quite articulate. That's one of my problems with the season -- she seemed to be all over the map and frankly, the only thing I could get from her consistently was her own ambition. I don't buy that she has no options (which is what I was picking up from all this) -- after all, she was successful when she was running the non-profit. Yes, she crashed and burned at the UN thing. I think that could have been a viable thing for her to do after Frank's first term, whether he had won or not. All she had to do was get involved in some sort of "appropriate" cause (human trafficking, safe drinking water, disease management -- what have you -- that would have bolstered her credibility in dealing with international issues and aid groups that had political ramifications) for the duration of Frank's term and then moved upward from there.

 

When they showed her sitting in his chair in the oval office, it definitely felt like she was trying it on for size. And for the life of me, I don't know why she would think she should be sitting in that chair. Maybe it's supposed to be channeling all the sacrifices she made for Frank to get to that chair, but he'd likely have ended up there with or without her. I think he's just that focused on it. I sense the desire for that kind of power is new for Claire.

 

I will say this: when they had their confrontation in the oval office, I really felt like if he hadn't been president and didn't expect her ass out on the campaign trail with him, he'd have knocked her ten ways til Sunday. But he couldn't risk such a thing, so he had to reign himself in. At least that's how it seemed to me.

 

The Underwoods were their own worst enemies this season.

The only reason she cared about the hanging is because she failed. It infuriated her and then she was a fucking moron and went rogue at the press conference and caused even more death with her narcissism.

[knaankos]

In season 1 and 2 Frank was a vile character and he stomped down anyone in his path. This season despite the fact that you knew his history of how he got to office, he made a whole lot of sense in pretty much every argument he was in. He was right in the arguments with Petrov, he was more than fair and reasonable with him. He made good points in his arguments with Jackie and Dunbar and most importantly he was completely right in the final fight with Claire. 

 

 

I agree with the poster above who said that they didn't buy the Remy/Jackie love story. I felt like that was a fling equivalent to the writer and Baldwin this season, not some kind of one true love thing.

 

 

I HATED the writer. He was arrogant and douchey to the extreme. I hated how the writers made him an important part of the reason that Claire leaves Frank.

Edited March 17, 2015 by knaankos

[Athena]

I have never really bought the Remy/Jackie love story either. Yes, they are both good looking people, but neither of them are even close to being able to take down Frank, Claire or Doug.

 

Similarly, I didn't really see much of the point of the new journalist and Tom Yates. Mickey Doyle did very well as Tom Yates, but like many storylines this season, it meandered.

 

For me, Claire and Frank were more less equals in S1 and S2. Once S3 started and Claire had moved out of their bedroom, it was no longer equal. She forgot how to play the long game. She lost her cool at the nomination and in Russia. The dynamic between her and Frank did change when he became POTUS. She was always the slightly stronger one. Frank and her both knew it which is what their sex scene in the earlier episode emphasized. She took care of him. She revived him, but he couldn't really do the same for her. She gave up her goals, her blood, and all she had for him. I think she should have seen this coming or waited it out a bit longer before freaking out like she did the last few episodes. It's not like she didn't know what would happen, but Claire hates loss of control more than anything. She had no control over her life or their lives anymore. I'm not sure I liked this storyline, but I can see why Claire reacted the way she did.

 

I think Doug's storyline was fascinating to me only because of the acting.

[Misty79]

Bold and numbers are mine, so I can orderly address these points in your post without having to quote every sentence separately.

 

(1) There are no serial killers on this show.  You can say that Frank, Claire and Stamper are sociopaths, as they exhibit many of the traits of the condition, but no one on this show is a serial killer.  According to the FBI a serial murder is "The unlawful killing of two or more victims by the same offender(s), in separate events.".  Since Doug has only killed one person, the term serial does not apply to him.  As for the stalking, I'd say it was more prominent last season than this season.

 

Whilst it's never been made explicit, the show has very much given the impression that Stamper has killed for Frank before. That makes him a serial killer. But really it was a loose comment about the tone/feel of the episode. The previous deaths on the show were abrupt (in particular Zoe's) and on some level remotely understandable. But this felt like an entire episode devoted to the stalking and murder of a young woman. And I don't see how Rachel posed more than a 0.001% threat to Francis, it was more about Stamper "completing" his mission at this point than anything else, IMO. 

 

In going into such graphic detail about the planning, the digging of the grave and dedicating so much time to the act of killing I felt like I was watching a very different show. The sort of show I avoid. 

Edited March 17, 2015 by Misty79

[Maysie]

I wouldn't be surprised if Doug has killed for Frank before, but I don't consider him a serial killer -- he's kind of like a mob hit man, just doing whatever he's needed to do to keep order. I don't know what the legal definition for that kind of multiple murderer is (not quite mass murderer). However, I absolutely agree that the way the season played out with Rachel in regards to Doug was very creepy/stalkerish that was in stark contrast to how other murders have been done on the show.

 

On one hand, I hope it was done that way to give us some insight into Doug and the person he really is/has evolved into because of working with and for Frank. But on the other hand, I hated the storyline and frankly don't give a shit if we ever see Doug again. I was glad when I thought he was dead at the end of season 2 -- it would have made a more interesting season 3 in many aspects. The only way Doug's going to be interesting to me is if he turns on Frank. Because really, I guess you could make a case that much of Frank's missteps/incompetence since he's been in the White House may be due to the loss of Doug. Perhaps Doug's really the power behind the throne? I don't know, but it's worth considering.

[WearyTraveler]

I wouldn't say the power behind the throne, but Doug certainly was the man Frank went to for those really messy tasks he didn't / couldn't do himself.  Like killing Rachel.  We have seen Frank commit two murders, but in those occasions, in spite of being a high ranking government official, he didn't have a 24/7 security detail.  Now that he is the president he can't simply sneak out, shake off the Secret Service, and push someone into an oncoming train.  So, I guess he really does need Doug more than ever.

 

Doug is also the man that gets the dirt on people.  He had the time and the abilities to find the skeleton in the closets of all of Frank's rivals.  This season, we haven't seen anybody on Frank's staff who could / would do that for him.

[knaankos]

They should have had Stamper stumble upon Walter White's money while digging a grave for Rachel.

[peggy06]

I hated every minute of the Stamper/Rachel storyline. Creepy and awkward, while at the same time boring. A waste of a good character (Stamper, who IMO was one of the more interesting from S1). Up till the end, I felt like he wasn't going to be able to kill her. Are we meant to think it was always his plan to pretend to release her, and then run her down? Because if so, that's ultra-creepy and cruel. I wish he had died at the end of S2, or else gone off with his therapist and let Frank twist in the wind over Rachel. (The therapist had a definite look of Rachel, which I assume was part of her attraction for him.) No offense to the actor, who is very good at portraying Stamper. I just find the plot unpalatable and uninteresting.

 

No doubt in my mind that the loss of Stamper is a major factor in the blundering we've seen from the Underwoods this season. He was more than a fixer and hit man; he appears to have impeccable political skills, a ton of contacts, and he knows how to use them. He was making short lists for Frank before even being hired back. If he is back as chief of staff, that's about the best thing Frank has going for him now. I may even find him more tolerable if he isn't always going to be mooning and/or stalking. To be clear, I don't like the character, and I recognize he is a bad guy. On this show, who isn't? Even St. Heather finally made an underhand move.

 

Speaking of Heather, I should like her, because she's smart, articulate, a match for Frank, and I align with the politics she espouses. But she rubs me the wrong way. They made her too perfect, kind of sanctimonious. I was actually glad she got down in the dirt at the end, because it was getting to be too much. Incidentally, was Frank not proved right that Robert should have retired? 

Edited March 18, 2015 by peggy06

[knaankos]

I dont think that it was always Doug's intention to pretend to release Rachel. I think he was fully hell bent on finishing her for good and he was stone cold the whole way, determined not to let her affect him. Her last minute pleading finally got to him and spoke to his "redeemed side" (I guess?). Then he went to have a think at the grave. His conscience gave one last extinction burst of obsession with Rachel with made him let her go.

Then as he's driving away, stone cold Stamper returns and finishes it. And that's who Doug is now fully. I think that last gasp was the very last of his soul.

Edited March 18, 2015 by knaankos

[knaankos]

What does this racial stuff even mean? If a black man or an Asian man killed Rachel, would that be better for her? Would she somehow be less dead?

It's very simplistic. Doug apparently is "just a white man" and Rachel is "just a bisexual woman"

[LibertarianSlut]

 I'm a conservative and I would consider voting for Heather IRL.

  

 

Speaking of Heather, I should like her, because she's smart, articulate, a match for Frank, and I align with the politics she espouses.

I know I am guilty of missing some lines, and I don't rewind, with Netflix being so punitive about it, but for the love of Pete, can someone explain to me the politics of Heather Dunbar, such that one might consider voting for her? All I've seen resembling a political position is:

90% unfettered, seething hatred for everything that is Frank Underwood, personally or professionally

5% "commitment" to raising the minimum wage, with no articulated plan for same

5% "commitment" to closing the gender wage gap, with no articulated plan for same

Now I know that when it comes to choosing to agree with a candidate's politics, I may be a little more obsessive than some, as I won't back a candidate without knowing their position on the Export-Import Bank. But do we know anything about Heather Dunbar's political view on, say, foreign policy, diplomacy, foreign aid, globalization, trade, borders, taxes, abortion, the war on drugs, privatization of civic institutions, prison reform, etc?

Is the viewer just supposed to extrapolate that she's left-wing on every issue based on the limited bunch of issues on which she has spoken out? I don't think the writers would pen such a two-dimensional character on HoC. As a candidate, it appears Heather Dunbar has been written to alienate the viewer and the voter from Frank. One can doubt how effective she's been, since losing in Iowa, but I can see why Heather Dunbar would cause one to doubt Frank. What I fail to understand is what about the character is compelling enough for anyone to want to vote for her or what has she exhibited politically to cause one to want to support her?

[peggy06]

  I know I am guilty of missing some lines, and I don't rewind, with Netflix being so punitive about it, but for the love of Pete, can someone explain to me the politics of Heather Dunbar, such that one might consider voting for her? All I've seen resembling a political position is:

90% unfettered, seething hatred for everything that is Frank Underwood, personally or professionally

5% "commitment" to raising the minimum wage, with no articulated plan for same

5% "commitment" to closing the gender wage gap, with no articulated plan for same

Now I know that when it comes to choosing to agree with a candidate's politics, I may be a little more obsessive than some, as I won't back a candidate without knowing their position on the Export-Import Bank. But do we know anything about Heather Dunbar's political view on, say, foreign policy, diplomacy, foreign aid, globalization, trade, borders, taxes, abortion, the war on drugs, privatization of civic institutions, prison reform, etc?

Is the viewer just supposed to extrapolate that she's left-wing on every issue based on the limited bunch of issues on which she has spoken out? I don't think the writers would pen such a two-dimensional character on HoC. As a candidate, it appears Heather Dunbar has been written to alienate the viewer and the voter from Frank. One can doubt how effective she's been, since losing in Iowa, but I can see why Heather Dunbar would cause one to doubt Frank. What I fail to understand is what about the character is compelling enough for anyone to want to vote for her or what has she exhibited politically to cause one to want to support her?

I suppose I am guilty of having made that extrapolation, based on her running as a Democrat and her positions on those two issues. Of course in real life I wouldn't make taht assumption, but the politics on this show are so generalized and once-over-lightly that I think it's a fair extrapolation. Unlike Frank, who seems to be a Blue Dog Democrat at best, Dunbar is taking two traditionally liberal Democratic positions. Or at least, traditional, non-Blue-Dog positions.

Edited March 19, 2015 by peggy06

[alexvillage]

It took me forever to watch this season and now that I have I have nothing to say or expect. Did not like the season, did not like the acting so much, hated that Claire is no longer Lady Macbeth.

 

I don't know if the show has been renewed, and I really don't care.

[MonicaM]

I wasn't wild about the season.  As much as I want Frank to lose and become yesterday's news, I think his opponent Heather has the potential to be as bad or worse.  She seethes with anger and hatred and has the same power hungry attitude as does Frank.  

 

I guess Doug's story line wasn't a complete waste this season.  It showed how he had to fight his way back to health, and that he had recovered enough to stalk Rachel endlessly until he closed that story line.  However, it was still boring and took up way too much time.  

 

I understand Claire's importance to Frank.  She helped him reach the top, and she is one of his few weak spots.  However, I wouldn't mind if next season he had to manage without her.  I'd love to see Frank and Claire turn against each other and destroy themselves by their efforts to destroy each other.

[bobbyjoe]

Unless he had a gun, I am amazed that Doug would have been able to overpower Rachel, when she was untied and knew he was coming. She had plenty of notice he was coming. She was young, fit and healthy. He was partly crippled. She should have just run through the field and there's no way he could have gotten her, unless he had a gun.

 

Same with regard to the hacker guy. He started out as a very sharp guy, always in control and on top of things - always outsmarting his opponent. All of a sudden he's making stupid mistakes, loses control and is outwitted by the brilliant Stamper!! (ROFL).

 

Doug barely survived an attack that left him doing massive physical therapy and walking with a cane, but this episode he's suddenly Jason Vorhees.  Beating up the hacker, easily taking an athletic young woman. 

 

My only surprise is there wasn't a scene where Rachel was running really fast, while Doug followed her walking really, really slowly, yet still caught up with her. 

 

Or maybe a scene where he threatens Rachel on the phone and the cops call her and tell her "get out of that house! We just traced the number and the call is coming from upstairs!!!!!"

[Fen]

Doug barely survived an attack that left him doing massive physical therapy and walking with a cane, but this episode he's suddenly Jason Vorhees.  Beating up the hacker, easily taking an athletic young woman.

 

'Successful' violence, or winning a fight, or whatever you want to call it, often has less to do with fitness and size, and more to do with hitting first, hitting hard, and being willing to hurt someone.  Gavin and Rachel are not violent by nature, while Doug does not hesitate to use it.  Plus, he's fuelled by a significant amount of rage and bitterness to do with these particular people.

[Loulu2u]

I loved this season.  Reminds me of Shakespeare, "Uneasy lies the head that wears the crown..."  It seems Frank and Claire are becoming more and more like Macbeth and Lady Macbeth.  I'm not sure if Claire is having a crisis of conscious, or if she's just mad that only one person gets to be President.  This season they were both living the down side of having achieved power for power's sake.  When you're in power you have to actually get things done for the people.

 

I also wanted to respond to the posters who were wondering how Doug killed Rachel/Cassie.  She was walking on a road with fences on each side.  I assumed he hit her with the van.  She wouldn't have been able to climb the fence and run into the field very quickly, and if so, he could have driven over the fence and pursued her.  

 

 

[RemoteControlFreak]

I'm interpreting the Doug storyline very differently.

 

Doug didn't kill Rachel because of unrequited love or obsessive love.  He killed her because she was a living witness (albeit indirect) to Frank's murder of Russo. Yes, he was obsessed with her, but not because he loved her and couldn't have her.  

 

He wasn't angry that Rachel was in a relationship with a woman. He was angry that the relationship might cause the truth of what happened to Russo to leak out.  He didn't have any real affection for Rachel. Like the other similar-looking women he picked up for one-night stands, that's mostly all she was. The reading of the Bible and Dickens?  As Rachel reminded him, it was just an emotionally-stilted way of reminding him of the comfort he got from his mother when she read to him.  

 

Doug is incapable of forming any kind of strong attachment or loyalty to anyone except Frank.  And Frank is the only one that has always been there for him, giving him multiple chances to redeem himself from his addiction.  Even when Frank ignored him for months after his injury, Doug didn't see this as Frank losing faith in him. To Doug, it was just Seth blocking his access, and his (Doug's) own unworthiness that kept him from Frank.  When his brother's family visited, it only served to show him how far away he was from ever having anything like that. 

 

And also, Doug ran Rachel over with the van.  Wasn't that obvious?

Edited March 22, 2015 by remotecontrolfreak

[dohe]

I hated this last episode, I really did. I don't watch this show for creepy serial killer/stalker rubbish, that's the sort of thing I avoid at all costs on television. This show really diminished itself going down the well worn path of having a twenty-something attractive young woman murdered like that. Are there people (men?) out there that get off on this stuff? Stamper is vile. It just felt totally unnecessary to me. 

 

I'm not sure I'll watch the next season. I enjoyed the middle of the season when the show was revolving around geopolitics and interaction with Russia but overall the show lacked the originality and depth it displayed in previous seasons. It felt like I was watching a slightly darker West Wing. 

Well said.  When it comes down to it, Doug's storyline was depicted as a triumph in which a straight man rejected and wounded by a bisexual twenty something woman got back on his feet and punished her for daring to reject him and not follow his orders.  And do people get off on twenty something women being murdered on tv.  Absolutely. 

Edited March 23, 2015 by dohe

[peggy06]

I'm interpreting the Doug storyline very differently.

 

Doug didn't kill Rachel because of unrequited love or obsessive love.  He killed her because she was a living witness (albeit indirect) to Frank's murder of Russo. Yes, he was obsessed with her, but not because he loved her and couldn't have her.  

 

He wasn't angry that Rachel was in a relationship with a woman. He was angry that the relationship might cause the truth of what happened to Russo to leak out.  He didn't have any real affection for Rachel. Like the other similar-looking women he picked up for one-night stands, that's mostly all she was. The reading of the Bible and Dickens?  As Rachel reminded him, it was just an emotionally-stilted way of reminding him of the comfort he got from his mother when she read to him.  

 

Doug is incapable of forming any kind of strong attachment or loyalty to anyone except Frank.  And Frank is the only one that has always been there for him, giving him multiple chances to redeem himself from his addiction.  Even when Frank ignored him for months after his injury, Doug didn't see this as Frank losing faith in him. To Doug, it was just Seth blocking his access, and his (Doug's) own unworthiness that kept him from Frank.  When his brother's family visited, it only served to show him how far away he was from ever having anything like that. 

 

And also, Doug ran Rachel over with the van.  Wasn't that obvious?

Interesting, very interesting. Since I had thought Doug did have feelings for rachel, and was conflicted about the task he had set for him, I tried to find a flaw in your theory. Really, I couldn't come up with a scene that couldn't be interpreted along the lines you laid out above.  This presupposes that he always planned to run her down with the car, and did not have a last-minute change of mind. I thought it was a change of mind when I was watching, but then started wondering if it was all part of a plan. If the latter, he is even sicker than I thought.

[Fen]

There's a really good interview with Michael Kelly where he talks about Doug's motivations:

 

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2015/03/12/house-of-cards-secret-weapon-doug-stamper-tells-all.html

 

The actor seems like a really nice guy, and it's funny that he refers to Frank as 'Francis'.

[WearyTraveler]

There's a really good interview with Michael Kelly where he talks about Doug's motivations:

 

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2015/03/12/house-of-cards-secret-weapon-doug-stamper-tells-all.html

 

The actor seems like a really nice guy, and it's funny that he refers to Frank as 'Francis'.

 

Good read!  The things that got my attention:

 

And then I got another email from my business manager saying, ‘Well, it was fun while it lasted!’ And I thought, ‘Wait?! Shit! Maybe they changed their minds?’ And I spoke to my business manager again because I heard people’s deals were being worked on and I said, ‘So… you still haven’t heard anything?’ Weeks went by, and I started to freak out. Anything can happen on our show, and I didn’t want to call Beau. And then I finally got the call.

 

This must be so nerve racking for an actor! 

 

At the core of it, I think it’s just another addiction for him. In whatever form it took—from daughter, to mother, to lover, to infatuation—she was just another addiction. The things that drive Doug to do what he does is that he’s an addict, and she’s just another addiction. And he has to have it.

 

He does know that it’s the loose end that has to be tied for him to get back to Frank. He believes that he has to find her and deal with it, otherwise he’ll always be on the outside looking in. She does a very good job of convincing him that everything is going to be fine. She says, “You are never ever going to see me again.” And it’s enough for him for a minute, and then he realizes, “No. I have to go back and take care of this.”

 

So he had to kill Rachel, otherwise he couldn’t return to Francis, where he belongs.

 

I think this is an interesting take on the character.  Not that I condone killing another human being, but it seems that for Doug, killing Rachel served two purposes: to eliminate the temptation of an addiction and to get back into Frank's inner circle.  I got the second one quite easily from the show and Doug's arc in the three seasons that have aired, but the addiction thing wasn't so clear to me.  Now that he verbalizes it, I see it.

 

It’s funny, man, girls on Twitter are like, “I love Stamper! I wish I could have a Stamper!” with little heart emojis and stuff, and I’m like, “Oh my god. What is wrong with you? What kinds of issues do you have? That’s sick.”

 

LOL! So much this! I enjoy watching the character and Michael Kelly's performance, but I wouldn't want a Doug Stamper anywhere near me.  Who are these people?!

 

But for every guy who went up to me and wanted to do shots, there was someone [young political staffers] who came up to me and said, “I work for a guy who’s just like you.”

 

This is scary and sad at the same time.

Edited March 23, 2015 by WearyTraveler

[dohe]

In my opinion, Kelly says nothing in that interview that isn't already clear on the show.  The sequence that all but said Doug is definitely obsessed with Rachel and that obsession carried with itself a romantic/sexual component was when Doug saw Rachel having sex with Lisa.  If the show had intended for Doug's concerns to solely be Rachel might confess to someone because she was in a relationship, it could have showed Doug spying Rachel holding Lisa's hand or kissing her.  It did not.  It showed a fairly graphic sex sequence and Doug, who was looking forward to seeing Rachel, devastated.  Doug was not devastated because he was scared Rachel might tell secrets in that moment.  Doug was devastated because someone he was addicted to with a sick obsession (one with romantic and sexual undertones) was having fantastic sex with this other woman. 

 

Ultimately the show became Criminal Minds with this subplot and betrayed a chance to have something praiseworthy, Rachel refusing to be controlled by this creep and killing him when threatened, to play out this warped, detestable garbage it played out this year.  One that no doubt had those twitter fans that Kelly refers to all tingly and excited. 

Edited March 23, 2015 by dohe

[RemoteControlFreak]

Interesting, very interesting. Since I had thought Doug did have feelings for rachel, and was conflicted about the task he had set for him, I tried to find a flaw in your theory. Really, I couldn't come up with a scene that couldn't be interpreted along the lines you laid out above.  This presupposes that he always planned to run her down with the car, and did not have a last-minute change of mind. I thought it was a change of mind when I was watching, but then started wondering if it was all part of a plan. If the latter, he is even sicker than I thought.

I think his original plan was to hit her over the head with the shovel, or strangle her with the rope, maybe after knocking her out temporarily with the acetone and then bury her. There are a lot of ways that he could overpower her. She talked him out of it then he came to his senses (in his mind), turned the car around and plowed her down.

 

It looks like Michael Kelly's interpretation kind of jibes with mine for what that's worth.  Killing Rachel tied up the last loose string that could implicate Frank, and Doug, in Russo's killing.  And by doing that it was what got Doug back to Frank.

 

 

It’s funny, man, girls on Twitter are like, “I love Stamper! I wish I could have a Stamper!” with little heart emojis and stuff, and I’m like, “Oh my god. What is wrong with you? What kinds of issues do you have? That’s sick.”

I would love to have Doug Stamper working for me, unflinchingly loyal, covering up my mistakes, pro-actively eliminating any obstacles.  But I'm not a girl who posts to Twitter with heart emojis so those Twitterers may have a different reason for their attraction.

Edited March 23, 2015 by remotecontrolfreak

[Loulu2u]

<<<As much as I want Frank to lose and become yesterday's news, I think his opponent Heather has the potential to be as bad or worse. She seethes with anger and hatred and has the same power hungry attitude as does Frank.>>

 

I don't know how to use the quote function yet.  I agree about Heather Dunbar.  She seemed like a fair minded person at the start of her campaign, but her willingness to expose Claire's lies (Claire's not running, wasn't the lie about who raped her) or blackmail Frank NOT to expose Claire, shows that she's just as power hungry and devious as Frank.  

Edited March 23, 2015 by Loulu2u

[Fen]

  I know I am guilty of missing some lines, and I don't rewind, with Netflix being so punitive about it, but for the love of Pete, can someone explain to me the politics of Heather Dunbar, such that one might consider voting for her? All I've seen resembling a political position is:

90% unfettered, seething hatred for everything that is Frank Underwood, personally or professionally

5% "commitment" to raising the minimum wage, with no articulated plan for same

5% "commitment" to closing the gender wage gap, with no articulated plan for same

Now I know that when it comes to choosing to agree with a candidate's politics, I may be a little more obsessive than some, as I won't back a candidate without knowing their position on the Export-Import Bank. But do we know anything about Heather Dunbar's political view on, say, foreign policy, diplomacy, foreign aid, globalization, trade, borders, taxes, abortion, the war on drugs, privatization of civic institutions, prison reform, etc?

Is the viewer just supposed to extrapolate that she's left-wing on every issue based on the limited bunch of issues on which she has spoken out? I don't think the writers would pen such a two-dimensional character on HoC. As a candidate, it appears Heather Dunbar has been written to alienate the viewer and the voter from Frank. One can doubt how effective she's been, since losing in Iowa, but I can see why Heather Dunbar would cause one to doubt Frank. What I fail to understand is what about the character is compelling enough for anyone to want to vote for her or what has she exhibited politically to cause one to want to support her?

 

I'm similarly confused.  She has no experience.  How on earth can she hope to be taken seriously?  All she seems to know is that she really, really wants this, but apparently had never even considered it until someone else mentioned it.

 

I thought she dirtied her hands with alarming speed, too - after her stunt press conference in her spotless white suit.  Frank Underwood is apparently everything that's wrong, but she'll jump at the chance of hiring his right hand man?  Manipulating Jackie's rather fragile and new-found sense of motherhood?  Willingness to use Claire's abortion?  She's as ambitious and amoral as any of them, and doesn't even have the CV to back up her bid.  Weak.

 

LOL! So much this! I enjoy watching the character and Michael Kelly's performance, but I wouldn't want a Doug Stamper anywhere near me.  Who are these people?!

 

Briefly - since it's off-topic - there's a rather odd variety of fanfiction, mostly written by younger girls (early teens and a little younger), where their dad, or best friend, or very platonic boyfriend is someone like Jason Voorhees, or a similarly scary villain, who is happy to kill all their enemies for them.  Someone, somewhere, will probably be doing a PhD on it.

[SoWindsor]

I always found Doug compelling and thought he did love Rachel so I was shocked he killed her. Wasn't he distraught thinking she was dead in an earlier episode.

Also how did he bond with his brother and niece and nephew if he truly is a sociopath.

Odd.

[Sir RaiderDuck OMS]

Well said.  When it comes down to it, Doug's storyline was depicted as a triumph in which a straight man rejected and wounded by a bisexual twenty something woman got back on his feet and punished her for daring to reject him and not follow his orders.

Doug's murder of Rachel had nothing to do with her being bisexual. It had everything to do with him following Frank's orders and murdering someone who could potentially become a threat (as unlikely as it was).

[reggiejax]

That moment in the Oval Office where Frank drops his folksy aww-shucks accent and rips into Claire is one of the best things Kevin Spacey has ever done and its not like we're pulling from a short list. He was incredible. The season had some uneven moments for sure but that's what I'll remember. It was claustrophobic and intense. Best scene of the entire season

 

That speech ranks right up there with Miles Drentell's "I thought you knew" speech.

[mwell345]

 

Ugh! Too much time was spent on Doug this season. He is a truly repulsive human being, both inside and out.

 

Just finished binge watching the entire series.  Love it - but I have to agree with this.  I found myself bored with the Doug story, felt it was a distraction, and the Russo thing happened so long ago, I had to remind myself why Rachel was important in the first place.

 

Overall, I thought it was the weakest arc in a very good show.  Well, Claire and the artist did nothing for me either.