She The People – Season 1 Episode 1 Recap & Review
Vote for Me
Episode 1 of She The People begins with am introduction to Antoinette Dunkerson and her crazy family. She's running for Lieutenant Governor in Mississippi but she's facing a lot of critique to get there. Governor Harper is the current man in charge and while he does have a great reputation, Antoinette's isn't quite in the same ball park. Her mother has been handing out campaign flyers at funerals, she's divorced (a big taboo for these family-first constituents and Antionette's family live in the big crime-riddled area of town too.
The interview is a tumultuous ride but Antoinette manages to come out of this in one piece relatively unscathed. Her mother is seething though, given she's been watching from the wings, and wants to go and get more votes… at the strip club. Antoinette doesn't agree and she trades a bit of banter with Basil, her flamboyant driver who puts more effort into his colourful suits than anything else, before driving back home.
There's also Shamika, who's Antoinette assistant and she does not take kindly when she finds Antoinette's ex husband, Cyrus, back home. They're right in the midst of campaigning and have a lot of stops to make before they reach the HQ that night for the big results.
Antoinette also has two children, Titus and Lola. Both have very different opinions to their mother campaigning, with Titus much more nonchalant compared to Lola. This 16 year old livewire is not happy, bemoaning her mum for tarnishing her social media profile.
Shamika has been keeping an eye on Lola's social profile though through a burner account online, and given she goes to a private school, Shamika believes Lola needs to toughen up and gain some humility.
Well, she clearly doesn't track her very well because Lola winds up with her teen boyfriend at a house party that night. Unfortunately, this does the rounds and goes viral online, which does massive damage for Antoinette's campaign.
As Antoinette races over to the party, she's warned by Shamika to slow down given they have weed in the car. They eventually make it to the party though, where Antoinette does her best to stamp her authority with her daughter. However, when Lola's smart-mouthed boyfriend squares up to her, Antoinette punches the guy in the face and breaks his nose. The video goes viral online though and it's a smash hit.
This physical assault of a minor does a great job in the community as they all decide to head out and vote for Antoinette. As a result, she clinches the seat of Lieutenant Governor, setting up the season to follow.
The Episode Review
So Tyler Perry is back and after the joke of Beauty in Black's atrocious storytelling (or lack thereof), we now have an actual comedy about a woman making her way into politics.
The comedy is going to be an acquired taste of course and the show immediately settles into the usual Tyler Perry quips of showing the tumultuous highs and lows of the black experience. The family full of character with Basil's flamboyant suits and our eccentric grandma presumably funnelling most of the best humour to be had here.
Antoinette's assault rallying the people and getting them to vote for her is an absurdist bit of humour but given this is a comedy, it's hard to say if this is being played for laughs or not.
It'll be interesting to see where this show goes next, and with a whole season to work with, we don't have too long to wait and find out.
Next Episode
Expect A Full Season Write-Up When This Season Concludes!
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Independent
17 minutes ago
- The Independent
New CDC advisers will skip some expected topics and explore a target of antivaccine activists
U.S. Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr.'s new vaccine advisers meet next week, but their agenda suggests they'll skip some expected topics — including a vote on COVID-19 shots — while taking up a longtime target of anti-vaccine groups. The Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices makes recommendations on how to use the nation's vaccines, setting a schedule for children's vaccines as well as advice for adult shots. Last week, Kennedy abruptly dismissed the existing 17-member expert panel and handpicked eight replacements, including several anti-vaccine voices. The agenda for the new committee's first meeting, posted Wednesday, shows it will be shorter than expected. Discussion of COVID-19 shots will open the session, but the agenda lists no vote on that. Instead, the committee will vote on fall flu vaccinations, on RSV vaccinations for pregnant women and children and on the use of a preservative named thimerosal that's in a subset of flu shots. It's not clear who wrote the agenda. No committee chairperson has been named and the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services did not comment. Missing from the agenda are some heavily researched vaccine policy proposals the advisers were supposed to consider this month, including shots against HPV and meningococcal bacteria, said Dr. Susan Kressly, president of the American Academy of Pediatrics. Instead, the committee is talking about subjects 'which are settled science,' she said. 'Every American should be asking themselves how and why did we get here, where leaders are promoting their own agenda instead of protecting our people and our communities,' she said. She worried it's "part of a purposeful agenda to insert dangerous and harmful and unnecessary fear regarding vaccines into the process.' The committee makes recommendations on how vaccines that have been approved by the Food and Drug Administration should be used. The recommendations traditionally go to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention director. Historically, nearly all are accepted and then used by insurance companies in deciding what vaccines to cover. But the CDC has no director and the committee's recommendations have been going to Kennedy. Thimerosal is a longtime target of antivaccine activists Thimerosal was added to certain vaccines in the early 20th century to make them safer and more accessible by preventing bacterial contamination in multi-dose vials. It's a tiny amount, but because it's a form of mercury, it began raising questions in the 1990s. Kennedy — a leading voice in an antivaccine movement before he became President Donald Trump's health secretary — has long held there was a tie between thimerosal and autism, and also accused the government of hiding the danger. Study after study has found no evidence that thimerosal causes autism. But since 2001, all vaccines manufactured for the U.S. market and routinely recommended for children 6 years or younger have contained no thimerosal or only trace amounts, with the exception of inactivated influenza vaccine. Thimerosal now only appears in multidose flu shot vials, not the single-shot packaging of most of today's flu shots. Targeting thimerosal would likely force manufacturers to switch to single-dose vials, which would make the shots 'more expensive, less available and more feared,' said Paul Offit, a vaccine expert at Children's Hospital of Philadelphia. Doctors' groups have opposed Kennedy's vaccine moves Last week, 30 organizations called on insurers to continue paying for COVID-19 vaccines for pregnant women after Kennedy said the shots would no longer be routinely recommended for that group. Doctors' groups also opposed Kennedy's changes to the vaccine committee. The new members he picked include a scientist who researched mRNA vaccine technology and became a conservative darling for his criticisms of COVID-19 vaccines, a top critic of pandemic-era lockdowns and a leader of a group that has been widely considered to be a source of vaccine misinformation. The American Academy of Pediatrics has long put out its own immunization recommendations. In recent decades it has matched what the government recommended. But asked if they might soon diverge, depending on potential changes in the government's vaccination recommendations, Kressly said; 'Nothing's off the table.' 'We will do whatever is necessary to make sure that every child in every community gets the vaccines that they deserve to stay healthy and safe,' she said. ___ The Associated Press Health and Science Department receives support from the Howard Hughes Medical Institute's Department of Science Education and the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation. The AP is solely responsible for all content.
Daily Mail
25 minutes ago
- Daily Mail
Whoopi Goldberg shocks The View panel by claiming living in US as a black person is as bad as living in Iran
Whoopi Goldberg sparked a furious clash on The View after claiming that black people in the US are just as oppressed as people living under the Iranian regime. The panelist, who has a net worth of $60 million, flew into a rage when co-host Alyssa Farah Griffin argued that, 'it's very different to live in the United States in 2025 than it is to live in Iran.' 'Not if you're black,' Goldberg responded. The View panelists' back and forth came as they discussed President Donald Trump 's threat to Iranian leader Ali Khamenei as an 'easy target', opening a debate over how involved the US should get in the conflict. 'Let's just remember, too, the Iranians literally throw gay people off of buildings. They don't adhere to basic human rights,' Griffin said. Goldberg responded: 'Let's not do that, because if we start with that, we have been known in this country to tie gay folks to the car.' The panelists raised their voices as Goldberg repeatedly told Griffin that, 'there's no way I can make you understand it', to which Griffin fired back: 'The Iranian regime today is nothing compared to the United States.' The hostile exchange came amid rising fears in the US that Trump could plunge into war with Iran, with the country's leader Ali Khamenei sending an ominous warning hours before The View episode that America would face 'irreparable damage' if it joins the conflict. As Goldberg claimed that black Americans suffer as much as Iranians, The View panelists waded into the possibility of US strikes on Iran as the world waits to see if Trump pulls the trigger. Host Sunny Hostin appeared to justify Iran's side of the conflict, arguing that the Israeli attack on Iranian nuclear sites and the assassinations of several top Iranian military leaders was illegal. She said she disagreed with Trump branding Khamenei an 'easy target', saying: 'We really need to have a bird's eye view of what's going on. If that's OK for Israel to do, if that's OK for our president to do. Is that OK for another country to do to us?' Joy Behar added: 'Well, think of it this way, what if Canada was saying was going to build a nuclear bomb and they threatened to kill us all? What would we do?' Hostin responded: 'You have to do it diplomatically, Joy.' Behar said: 'Really? What's so diplomatic about having a nuclear bomb and threatening another country?' The View's take on the conflict comes as many of the president's diehard MAGA supporters have urged him not to enter the conflict and follow through with his isolationist platform that got him elected. On Wednesday, former Fox News host Tucker Carlson released bombshell interview clips where Texas Senator Ted Cruz appeared to admit U.S. is already actively engaged against Iranian targets. 'You said Israel was,' Carlson said, to which Cruz responded: 'I've said "we." Israel is leading them, but we're supporting them.' 'You're breaking news here,' Carlson responded. 'The U.S. government last night denied... on behalf of Trump, that we're acting on Israel's behalf in any offensive capacity.' Earlier this week, both Carlson and Trump's former chief strategist Steve Bannon said on their podcasts that striking Iran would put the US on a disastrous path forward. They blamed the 'deep state' in the intelligence agencies and war hawk Republicans for swaying Trump to support Israel's military strikes on Iran. And they warned the president faced the 'end of his presidency' if he got America embroiled into another lengthy war in the Middle East. The president bristled at Carlson's criticism, dismissing his comments at the G7. 'I don't know what Tucker Carlson is saying, let him go get a television network and say it so the people listen,' Trump said. Shortly afterward, the president fired back at Carlson on social media.
Daily Mail
25 minutes ago
- Daily Mail
EXCLUSIVE Insider claims there is one heartbreaking reason behind Harry's change of heart about letting Archie and Lilibet's photos be posted
Meghan Markle's glossy return to Instagram, complete with sun-drenched bike rides, home videos and intimate snaps of Archie and Lilibet may look like just a slick rebrand. But behind the soft-focus family footage there may lie a deeper motive. The Daily Mail's Spotlight has spoken to an insider who claims that the real reason Prince Harry is suddenly happy to see his children's faces shared online is a 'desperate' one. 'Harry is completely heartbroken,' an insider close to the family said. 'His dad refuses to see him or the kids - not even on Zoom... It's a last resort. 'He's desperately hoping the King might see a picture of Archie or Lilibet and realise what he's missing.' The insider added that Harry has made repeated attempts to reach out to his father over the years. 'He's tried everything - calls, letters... But nothing's worked,' they said. 'This is his way of saying, 'Look at what you're missing.' Until recently, the Duke and Duchess of Sussex were fiercely protective of Archie, six, and four-year-old Lili's privacy, keeping them largely out of the public eye. But in recent weeks, Meghan has embraced a far more open approach, posting unseen family clips, sharing glimpses of their Montecito life, and even twerking while pregnant just before going into labour in a now-viral video. She spoke about her decision to return to social media and share some of the pair's intimate family moments in a recent Aspire podcast with British entrepreneur Emma Gredge. She told Emma: 'Did you see my 'Baby Momma' dance? That was four years ago... I'm just grateful that now, being back on social... I can share it on my own terms.' But while Meghan is focused on leaning into the idea of authenticity and tying this into her lifestyle brand, As Ever, Harry's reasons may be strikingly more personal. His recent BBC interview laid bare the depth of the family rift and his heartbreak. He recently told the broadcaster in the much-criticised chat that he 'would love a reconciliation' and admitted he was 'devastated' to lose his legal battle over police protection in the UK, but added that the King currently won't speak to him. But Harry struck an apparently conciliatory tone in the interview. 'There's no point continuing to fight any more,' he said. 'Life is precious.' He added: 'I don't know how much longer my father has,' in a poignant reference to the King's ongoing cancer treatment. The Duke's security case, which has spanned several years, ended in defeat last month when senior judges sided with the government's decision to downgrade his protection after he stepped down as a working royal. Harry said the ruling had left him unable to safely return to the UK with his family, unless formally invited. 'I love my country, I always have done,' he said. 'And I think that it's really quite sad that I won't be able to show my children my homeland.' He described the decision to remove his full security status as a 'good old-fashioned establishment stitch-up', and said he believes the Royal Household influenced the move. 'I never asked [the King] to intervene,' he said. 'I asked him to step out of the way and let the experts do their jobs.' Royal experts said at the time that Charles was unable to speak to Harry during the court case for legal reasons. It's also been suggested that senior royals don't trust the Sussexes to keep any discussion between the two sides private. While the Duchess moves forward with a smile, sources say the Duke is still in low spirits: not only over his security loss, but over a family breakdown that shows no sign of healing.
