No nods for the women of Mad Men is only the tip of the iceberg. How 'bout The Wire being overlooked for the fifth and final time? No Mary McDonnell for (the flawed but resonant) Galactica? 2 and a Half Men over Flight of the Conchords for Best Comedy?

I'm glad to see John Adams and Mad Men draw some kudos. But, as usual, the Emmy nominations seems to have been chosen by people who have no sense of quality television whatsoever.

That being said, only Peggy and Betty have probably had enough screen time to garner nods anyway. Joan, Rachel, Midge, and the rest of the secretary pool haven't had a lot to do.

Really. I don't get it. I watched the first three episodes of season 1 expecting to be blown away because of how much praise the show has gotten, but instead I really disliked it. Every scene seemed like it had to have its "gotcha" moment when you realize how different the culture was in 1960. It was interesting, but it got old quickly. And, while it was interesting to see the characters conform completely to the gender roles of the time, it also left them seeming one dimensional. Is there something that I'm missing?

Because the Emmy's are a joke. They reward high ratings shows on the large three networks with a few scraps thrown to cable shows once in a while to pretend they care about good TV. Also aren't the Emmy voters many of the actors and directors on these shows, of course they want to pretend their crap is better than cable stuff. They make the money on ad space. Money = good.

The Emmy's need to get ratings, to do so, they need to reward shows that people watch so people will watch the Emmy's.

It needs to be politically correct, so no fantasy shows, no morally shady characters, no weird guys from New Zealand.

Also, with Mad Men, for a while it really bored me. Then the characters begin to grow and their backgrounds are revealed slowly. The show has become a must see for me now, I'm glad I didn't give up after 3 episodes. See if they have a marathon on and watch em in a row or rent them on DVD. You may find yourself intrigued at the behavior of the characters after a while, who they are at the beginning, is not who any of them really are and nothing is predictable.

the separate lives of separate people. something we willfully refute now. and that's tragic.

For those looking to catch the first season before Sunday, it is available free On Demand. Since this show is news to me, and I just started working within the advertising industry, I'm glad you clued me in. I've always been a fan of cable dramas so I'm looking forward to the next 13 hours of viewing pleasure!

"Who cares?" answers Roger Sterling, but for me, trying to answer this question (and examining the meticulously era-appropriate wardrobe and props) is the best part of the Mad Men experience. Elizabeth Moss surely deserves an Emmy nod for her role as Peggy who at first blush seems naive, yet with an arched eyebrow or an icy stare conveys how much she is catching on. Perhaps Emmys don't like nuance and prefer the arch villainy of Glenn Close in Damages that is riveting to watch, but not terribly thought-provoking.

Surely Ms Moss deserves an Emmy for enduring those horrendous bangs.

My only reaction after viewing the DVD's was: "OK, so Don is poised to become the next JR (guy-we-love-to-hate) and his wife is Sue Ellen's older sister."

Been there, done that, don't care to repeat. At least I presume the writers of MM won't make that shark-jumping mistake of a dream sequence.

For anyone who grew up during this era, and those who did not and are interested in how far we've gone in America, this show is great.

I love the restrictive clothes both sexes wear, the understanding of their own power, and the furniture. The smoking and drinking are bold too. The only thing missing are the ulcers and I'm sure someone will develop them before the season is over.

The creators of mass consumerism in America might have been pioneers, but they no sooner got control of their world before it all went spinning out of control. The social mores, rules, and traditions we all lived by would change and change some more before mass comsumerism would turn into crass greed with few class distinctions made, thank you.

In Mad Men we see people aspiring to something more than what they were born to. Today, the lines between class are blurred due to easy access to products that once established class lines - and drugs, not alcohol. The gang-banger wears the same gold chain and drives the same Esplanade as the upper-middle class suburbanite in the Hamptons. Actually, they both might be at the same party this summer. Unheard of in Mad Men's 1960's.

MAD MEN along with the CLOSER, HOUSE, SAVING GRACE, as well as several HBO PRODUCTIONS shows the way from 'main stream' television programming channels. What MS. HAVRILESKY wrote about the character from MAD MEN could have just as easily be applied to BARACK OBAMA including the cigarette smoking and hys 'secret life' of intrigue:"...Draper back when the show premiered, he's "self-pitying and spoiled, sure, but he's charismatic and possibly depressed enough that we feel for him nonetheless." The attitudes/lives of the women on MAD MEN are interesting/entertaining in a kind of 'time-warp' fantasy realm.

Thanks to Kate Harding for an interesting and insightful story on Mad Men, the new uncharacteristically competent TV series sensation!

Yes, I, too, am a fan of "Mad Men" and Don Draper, the male protagonist, who is a superb actor absolutely deserving of the award. But, where art thou, Mad Women of 'Mad Men' eh? Where's the incredible Elizabeth Moss [the competent secretary too intelligent for the boys]? Where's January Jones, that wonderfully depressed yet finely nuanced performer who plays Don Draper's wife? Mad Men's Mad Women are certainly not lining up to take their just bows come Awards Time! But Why? These [female] actors are absolutely, fabulously, convincingly, achingly, super-competently fluent in their art--and we'd like to know WHEN are the guys in charge of the Emmys [and just about every other Award going in this testosterone-engineered industry] gonna take notice and start applauding for the record?!

Interestingly, women film critics haven't multiplied much since Pauline K's time and critics have remained predominantly,over 80%, male thus giving audiences a mostly unbalanced, and, one could argue, unjustly narrowed, testosterone-fueled perspective on Life itself. And if Art imitates life, this is quite discouraging, and surely not a good sign for women interested in any viable career in a fickle film industry that tends to worship geriatric male protagonists and almost-feloniously-underaged females!

So, without the industry generating more female critics, you can forget about these marvelous Mad Women taking a bow any time soon, Kate!

Ah, Themis, ain't there any Justice left to balance out the testosterone-heavy scales for these chronically ignored Thespians?!... Now, if only Hillary Agonistes was in the picture...