Where have we ever seen that part of her? Let’s say for a moment that Don thwarts all that in her — but have you ever seen an inkling of it when she’s with someone else? "

Well, I don't know what you would count as deep — maybe we all would disagree — but I saw signs of that when she was talking with her therapist, of all people. She was reflecting on this ideal of happiness that failed her — "She wanted me to be beautiful so I could find a man. There’s nothing wrong with that. But then what? Just sit and smoke and let it go ‘til you’re in a box?" Or, "I know people say life goes on, and it does, and no one tells you that’s not a good thing. Why is that?" Remarks like that lead me to believe she is searching for more and not just an insensitive airhead.

There's no doubt that she has the narrow views and prejudices on class and race of her time; she's had a very sheltered bubble life of WASPy privilege, and it shows. She's also, yes, very obsessed with her appearance, and Don calls her petty. But it's a classic move of the time for men to praise and value women mostly for their looks, then criticize them for being shallow and image-obsessed and vain, not seeing a causal link between the two. The same kind of men tell their wives not to worry their pretty heads over things and shut them out of decision-making and then tut-tut when they feel so helpless at dealing with problems on their own.

I agree she can be shallow — very few people on this show haven't been — but I think there's a difference between saying someone is shallow and saying that that's all they have the potential to be. Forgive the strained simile, but maybe she's like a houseplant with shallow roots because she's always been in a tiny pot. Maybe that IS all she can be, but personally I'm not ready to bet that just yet.

I think that is dangerous though. It can lead to misinterpretation's of characters motives and desires, as I think is happening with your (and other's) interpretations. So I respectfully disagree…

I guess the other wonderful thing about this show is that there are so many important and universal themes that can bring to the show almost anything you want to, in terms of analysis and discussion. Some see Don as a heartless cad; others, like myself, see him as a terribly wounded and flawed soul who yearns to be good. You see what you want to see. And IMO, that is a hallmark of classic, timeless writing. When you can maintain that kind of appeal among people with such differing viewpoints, it is quite a complement to all those involved in the production.

We only get to see the decline and fall of the Don/Midge dynamic but they’ve known each other for years; it was no dalliance. Midge was likely Don’s muse. She was an artist living a bohemian lifestyle. She was his connection to a freer, sensual, less structured outlook on life; a life that flirts with rebellion and unrest and welcomes revolution. It’s a life in opposition to the one Don has built and accepted, a yin to his yang, and that exposure seems to stoke his creativity. In the S1 premiere it’s interesting that Don has problems to solve with the Lucky Strike (!) pitch, gets some MidgeTime, ponders the smoke and later, Voila! – “It’s toasted!”.

Don’s attracted to Rachel for the qualities we know he’s drawn to, – intelligence, independence, etc.
But I think he moves on to Rachel not necessarily because of magic. I think it’s because she has what he lacks– a solid, proud sense of self rooted in that family name. That’s her special appeal to Don. She is her father’s daughter and not ashamed of the fact.

Now the Enigma named Suzanne shows all the signs of being his new muse. The detail that struck me was how she tells him she’s going to read the MLK speech to the kids. And Don recognizes the idealism and radicalism (for that time) and danger to the status quo of doing just that. He sees a glimpse of the anarchist, the rock thrower, in this school teacher, this nurturer. She’s saying: tell them truth, let the chips fall where they may.
“Who are you?”
She’s “exactly the same” and “new and different” all at once. She’s Midge version 2.0. She’s the natural evolution of every woman he’s wanted.

It’s a fact, she’s trouble for Don Draper, for the concept of Don Draper, the construct of Don Draper’s Life but he knows this and does not care.

I have high hopes for Suzanne.

Maybe he needs to prove to himself that despite her outward rejection of him in the eclipse scene and the first jogging scene, she does want him. He can make Suzanne/Mommy love him, even if he can't make Connie/Daddy love him.

Boy, I hope we get some more clarification of where this relationship is coming from and where it's going next week, for good or for bad.

A blogger I respect said "racist should always be used as an adjective, never a noun." The same can be said of "homophobic." Don fired Sal for being gay, there is no way of prettying that up. It is not an issue of, is Don a homophobic person, it is an issue of homophobic behavior. There is no way that you can look at the action taken, not just of firing Sal, but of simply not believing Sal that nothing happened because he knows Sal is gay, and call it anything but homophobic.

That doesn't mean that Don wasn't more accepting in the past, or at least willing to look the other way as long as Sal limited his exposure.

This is driving me crazy lately. Last week a guy in Georgia put the word n****r on the side of his restaurant (and had Klan uniforms inside) and said he wasn't a racist, it was just the word he liked to use. Whathisname from Seinfeld calls people in his audience n****r and says he's not racist. No one wants to be called a name.

But look at the behavior. Alan Sepinwall said, would Don have treated Peggy the same way? I'll give you a better one: Would Don have treated Harry or Paul the same way? Would Lee Garner have gotten away with it if he had done it to someone Don believed he knew to be straight?

You can't compare it to Peggy because women, like gays, are sexually objectified, then and now. But a straight white man would not have been fired for refusing a gay pass from a client. That makes it homophobic.

But the lady had done nothing wrong. If Betty really wants to be "deep"–she can begin by discussing deeper matters–& not just with eligible gentlemen. I get the impression she'd love to hear her admirers add "You're so Deep" to the usual "You're so Beautiful." But she won't do anything about it.

Oh, well. Let's hope that Don's liaison with Suzanne brings the disastrous marriage to a hasty end. So we can see what's been happening in the Big City!

Yes, but only on sporadic occasions, and it's really just convenient but not critical for Don's success. For an ad man, a glittering wife is a nice accessory, but more or less extraneous. Bert, for example, has succeeded without a Mrs Cooper for quite some time (btw, I always thought the "late Mrs. Cooper" remark from Bert a while back referred to a deceased wife, not his mother, as I've seen some other people assume) I might be wrong, but I think the role of political wife can be much more important – hosting and attending functions is much more critical to success in the political world, and it would be one where Betty excels, like a junior Jackie.

Anyway, not that it matters. I'm really really ready to end this Draper marriage, if only so we can move on with the homefront storyline. I feel like we've been stuck in limbo all season. In that sense, I welcome the addition of Miss Farrell for the obvious danger it presents. Can anyone here imagine that it WON'T blow up in Don's face one way or the other, and pretty quickly? Like hullaballoo says above, we could get shitfaced in a drinking game naming all the ways this can end badly.

But for three seasons we've seen Betty unhappy and unfulfilled, and that's pretty much all that defines her now. She hasn't changed, her marriage hasn't changed, she's given little indication that she's planning to change. It's all become fairly dull. (I'm bored with Don too, but that's another post.)

But I'll still defend her mothering skills! She's no worse a parent than Don is!