I thought this episode was excellent. However, I totally failed to understand precisely what was going on with Donna having taken credit for that quote despite knowing that Jack said it, but somehow it mattered that she knew people would eventually realize she was lying…
huh?
I may have to go back and check the exact timing of things, she may have just been trying to buy Jack some temporary cover until he shipped out.
But there’s a flaw in the logic that has nothing to do with that. She accepted the blame when she was on the phone with C.J., before the paper hit the street. She couldn’t have known that the article would confirm her innocence since she hadn’t read it yet.
Got to agree with Josh. She was smokin’ hot in that gown, and having outsmarted the gang.
If CJ read the quote to her when she called to check, she’d have known about the first part, or if she’d talked to Jack and found out from him, she’d know.
Donna called CJ to tell her that the quote came from her. This was before it was in the paper, and I don’t think CJ knew the entire quote yet (Danny showed her some random slip of paper, probably his note pad). And even if she did know the whole quote, she wouldn’t have necessarily known that Donna couldn’t had known the part about the money.
Donna was attempting to take the blame for the quote. Totally. She wasn’t expecting anyone to figure out that it wasn’t her; in fact, she was afraid Josh might figure it out. But she called to take the blame for the quote so that Jack wouldn’t have to, so that he wouldn’t have to risk his up-and-coming career.
Was Donna being selfless or stupid? That’s open for debate.
Was Donna yummy-hot in blue strappy gown? Oh my, yes.
I didn’t like her hair.
I did like Charlie’s sudden declaration of love for Zoey and that he has to get her back. I hope they do that.
And Will Bailey falling apart when the Prez appointed him Deputy Counsel…very sweet.
Was the Prez at the end saying it is the role of the US to get involved militarily for humanitarian concerns?
So the next question is, are Donna and Josh ever going to get together? The writers seem to be leading in that direction. I think they would make a cute couple.
I was afraid West Wing had jumped the shark with the episode with CJ’s father. With this episode, I’m very, very relieved.
It would be HIGHLY inappropriate for Josh and Donna to get together. I hope they don’t.
Who here’s not a big fan of this Tom Joad Doctrine that Bartlett seems to have set up? I’m not sure I could see a president declaring such a policy, let alone a Democratic one. Seems a little too reckless and frivolous (the frivolous part I can understand…).
I’ll second Josh’s opinion of Donna in that dress. Yowza.
He certainly is, and seems to be happy to call this the “Bartlet Doctrine.”
This is Aaron Sorkin’s response to the charge that has frequently been laid to the the First World countries–why didn’t anyone stop the genocide in Rwanda? Would it have been different if it was a European country? And call me a bleeding heart liberal, but I think I’m on Sorkin/Bartlett’s side here.
I agree. And I think this is a great topic for GD. (So I’ll wait till someone starts a thread on the subject to ask, “Reckless how, Munch?”)
I like the Bartlett Doctrine as well, although I will admit it’s a slippery slope. Would it work in real life? Unlikely, but I appreciate having it out there as an option. I mean, I like knowing that other people have thought about the US doing humanitarian interventions.
Back to the episode–I fall back in love with this show almost every week. The writing is so crisp. And this episode made me tear up several times. I love that Will Bailey will be a regular (love the actor, love the character), I’m rooting for Charlie to win Zoey back, and all the other story lines are swell as well. I’m so cynical about politics, but this show keeps me hopeful.
Damn, well now I guess I don’t know. I wasn’t paying full attention, which could prove fatal in my reasoning. I guess I just don’t like the idea of sending our boys off to wage war against every injustice, when there are so many other ways in which to deal with such a situation.
Should we have gone in with troops to deal with Rwanda in the 90s?
Yes.
But I still think there are better ways for us to “be there” without wearing camoflauge and carrying M-16s. Being against tyranny at home and abroad is noble. Laying down your life for a friend is the greatest love. But laying down your life for your non-friend/non-enemy is, IMO, reckless.
I like the idealized optimism of all the characters on “The West Wing,” as well as the fantasy that the White House usually does things because it thinks they’re the right thing to do. But, last night’s show crossed the line from pleasant illusion to outright charicature. The idea of a hired-gun speechwriter could walk into the White House and, with a few well-placed words with the President, change US foreign policy over the objections of the State Department and the Pentagon crosses the line from “How sweet – I wish government really worked that way” to “Oh, jeezus, what country is this supposed to be happening in?”
The Kumari plot is much more interesting – a little more complicated portrayal of the tough decisions that a leader might face in trying to defend values they believe in.
The U.S. really can’t avoid being the world’s biggest cop, but there are very different ideas about how to use that role.
Bartlett Doctrine: Good cop.
Bush Doctrine: Bad cop.
I’ve only been watching the show since the middle of last season, but I’m pretty impressed. I hope it comes out on DVD so I can see the first two years. I liked the episode with CJ’s dad; it’s always a pleasure to watch Donald Moffat work, and they dealt with Alzheimer’s without forced sentimentality. Change-of-pace episode.
I liked the way that Toby, Josh, etc. act a little less serious when they’re out and away from the White House, and how Charlie holds his own with a bunch of older guys who all grew up being the smartest kid in class.
Speaking of which, in spite of all Clinton’s faults, I miss having a Rhodes scholar sitting behind the desk in the Oval Office.
I don’t think it’s nearly as implausible as you’re making it sound. There’s a huge difference between some random outsider wandering in with his own agenda and somehow imposing it on a bunch of other people vs. someone coming in and acting as a catalyst when a bunch of other people are wavering about a tough decision in a tough situation…
As for the Pentagon, the State Department, etc., part of the point of the episode was that the prez was doing this without consulting them. Which is probably not something that presidents do often with decisions of this magnitude, but hey, they didn’t seem to be taking it lightly…
I missed it! Yarr! Anyone got a plot run-down? I’m taking it Will Bailey got the president on his ‘side’ after the 2/5 episode. Any other big plot points? Danny and his scoop? Did we see any Andy this week? If someone can either run it down here, or email me, I’d really appreciate it.
I got a weird “fan fiction” vibe from the snowball scene. I loved it, but it was kind of odd.
If you’ve never read fanfic, that’s exactly what it’s like. Scenes where folks are dressed up for special occasions (the Men of the West Wing in Tuxedos!); everyone has something cute or clever to say; out-of-character action (throwing snowballs); personal revelations (Charlie talking about Zoey); characters you don’t normally see together (Charlie in a Josh/Tobey scene, plus of course Timothy Busfield); and capped with some semi-romantic dialogue between Josh and Donna. The only missing was Tobey and CJ dancing together or something. 
I just figured they were all a little drunk.
If I remember, this came up just before Donna apologized to Josh for lying to him about the quote. I think she told Josh that she expected him to figure it out, but didn’t expect that the split quote would make it so easy.