Makes me think about that episode where General Bazan seeks asylum in the US and makes some outrageous demands:
-$10 million USD
-a private plane
-immunity from war crimes
-asylum for himself and 60 members of his family
I remember when I saw the scene for the first time I thought, are you crazy!

The one between Josh and Alberto, where Alberto is offering up the 'girl in the restaurant example'.

Josh saying 'it's problematic when other people make my argument for me' when, in fact, Alberto appears to be making the opposite argument of Josh.

Or "'The kid wasn't throwing food.' 'Is there a crime that girl could commit that would have justified what the father did?'"

On that remark, I'm always like "Well, if the little girl shot her teacher!"...it's not a perfect analogy, but Alberto's example feels pretty far disconnected from the reality of the circumstances.

I'm not defending the death penalty for kids - I'm opposed to it. I just think the writing here is bad.

Apparently he’s coming to Dayton, Ohio of all places to campaign for the governor and senate candidates. Hopefully he’s signing autographs too lol

Update: for those who want details, here’s the sign-up link
https://www.mobilize.us/ohiowins/event/1075247/

…and on a “The West Wing” revival: “I always want to rekindle the show. I love the show, I love those people and I miss it, especially nowadays. The problem is, you’ve got to have a story. They won’t let me just write dialogue. Also, the cast has gotten older; I didn’t know that was going to happen.”

I’ve watched the series twice through and currently on a third.
I may have missed some earlier reference but what’s the deal with the woman from New York that Leo meets in a garage (with “foggy bottom secrecy”) and she provides polling data. Who is she? I get why they can’t meet in the WH but why so deep throat like??

…is oddly similar to the Dean Scream. The episode aired before Howard Dean issued his infamous holler, otherwise I would’ve thought it was a subtle nod to it.

In the episode, "It's surely to their credit", CJ is talking with Toby about how she thinks that people resent Ainsley Hayes because she's a woman, not as much because she's a Republican.

They talked about her being a beautiful woman, and Toby notes that CJ is beautiful as well.

As he leaves, he turns back as CJ says, "It took 2 years".

Is she saying it took 2 years for someone to tell her she's beautiful? This doesn't add up for me. Can someone clarify please?

Here me out...in 2002/03, what if they switch out Bartlet for Ritchie. The MS scandal was too much for the American public and Bartlet loses a 2000-esque electoral college nail biter.

We only saw a glimpse of Ritchie but he was modeled on the very charismatic George W Bush. We could have seen a "dream" Republican administration the same way we saw the ideal democratic administration with Bartlet.

Maybe, like Bush and Clinton, Ritchie and Bartlet even become friends.

This introductory shot of John Spencer is sooooo coooooooool. I really love his character, Leo McGarry, and I truly sobbed during his funeral.

Sorkin is a genius. The characters, the writing, the denseness of every episode is amazing.

The Wells years simply sucked. An entirely different series and not a very good one.

It’s a small thing but when President Bartlet is talking with Sam and Toby about the speech and can’t find his glasses, it cuts to different views out of 1/2 - Sam is wearing glasses and the other half he’s not. Small egg.

So this post is self explanatory, but in my opinion that in the Shutdown, was the masterpiece of Josh playing politics with the public. But I have a question for the hive mind...

Saw it last night, and the whole cast did an amazing job. Theatre was beautiful, great size no matter where the seats! And afterwards, we met the cast- including Bradley Whitford, who was gracious, chatty, and (non-unexpectedly!) funny. Very grateful to meet him, and for the whole experience!

I’m at the end of my umpteenth rewatch and I still believe this. He wouldn’t blame his brother when Andy begged him. Andy begged for a pardon. Andy did it and Toby fell on his sword to protect CJ when she was set up to take the blame. He knows it was Andy and will fall on his sword to make sure his kids have their mom too.

Someone said “arboreal” and I took that as a sign!

I have a 20-something nephew living with me for only a few months. He is a fan of Madam Secretary and we just finished watching The Diplomat together. So I decided to introduce him to TWW. We watched the pilot last night and he really enjoyed it.

The reason for my post here: I've seen that episode SO many times and still I was laughing literally out loud and so excited to see some of my favorite characters again. To be reminded that so many story lines start in that first episode. To see Allison Janney play a truly good character (she wasn't the leak!). To have my nephew say "is THAT the president!?" every time a new male character came on screen because Martin Sheen doesn't come in until almost the end. It was SO MUCH FUN!!

WEEEEEEEEE ... here I go again! 😄

In the opening of "Let Barlet be Bartlet"...the one with the trout fisherman/rain/FEC opening, Mrs. Landingham is in Bartlet's entourage. That always seemed off to me...are there any other examples of this? Any particular reason why she was with him at this one event?

Here is a pet theory from my third run-through, tell me if it’s way off the mark.

TWW, being an ensemble piece, does not really have a traditional protagonist and antagonist. So the dramatic conflict is between pragmatism and idealism.

There are characters who represent pragmatism, and the necessity of what it takes to actually get things done in Washington (eg Leo) and there are characters who represent idealism and who resent having to compromise their idealism (eg Toby), and then there are the characters trying to keep the two in balance, (eg President Bartlet, which is why it’s no accident that he has “Pragmatic Idealism” as the banner above his head at the start of Five Votes Down).

But where it gets interesting is where they deal with outsiders to the Bartlet administration, when suddenly the idealists start defending the pragmatism of the administration, and the pragmatists have to show loyalty to the core values they’re trying to defend.

Anyway, all the people I’ve ever met who dislike the show are people who struggle with accepting that governance always means working with this balance.

Does this sound right?

I’m currently watching the show, and I honestly find Danny so obnoxious. I know he’s a fandom darling for a lot of older viewers, but looking at his behavior objectively, it completely falls apart.

First of all, his entire courtship strategy is a textbook "nice guy" siege that systematically ignores personal and professional boundaries. C.J. is managing the communication strategy for the leader of the free world under massive stress. Every time Danny walks into her office, her body language says it all. She never looks happy to see him (maybe Alison Janney just clocked what kind of person the actor is).

The worst part is his "harmless, safe little guy" routine. He weaponizes this faux-humility so that if C.J. enforces a hard boundary, she looks like the aggressive one. He disguises himself as Santa and kisses her in front of the entire press corps. She didn't even know it was him! He tricks her into a physical encounter and uses a room full of her colleagues as a shield because he knows she can't make a scene without damaging her professional standing. It's manipulative, not romantic.

The show aggressively demands that we find him charming and buy into them as a realistic pairing, but the chemistry and visual gravity just aren't there. C.J. is a statuesque, brilliant powerhouse, and Danny looks like a rumpled troll.

And it's frankly wild to see people on here call him good looking. The show bends over backward to worship his cleverness, but he lacks the visual symmetry and leading-man magnetism to make his relentless badgering believable. Without that physical charisma to balance things out, he doesn't give off a playful "Sam and Diane" energy. He just looks like an average, entitled guy wearing down a woman who is completely out of his league until he finally exhausts her defenses.

2 things I don’t get from this episode. And I feel silly asking but this is a really cool sub so here goes:

When Sam gives Laurie the briefcase as the traditional Law School graduation gift; is she happy about it or disappointed? I’ve watched the episode a half dozen times and I can’t tell. i am guessing she’s happy. 

When Republican Senator Max Lobell asks “What do I get”. President Bartlet replies: "The thanks of a grateful President."  Republican Senator Max Lobell responds, "Good answer, sir”

Is it? I am guessing the President is saying he owes him one but I am not sure.  Help!