misogyny? Whoa. What was CJ - you seen a lot of women in that position, never mind toally owning the press corp?
And Dr Bartlett? And Mrs Landingham?
I’m not saying there weren’t kickass powerful strong women. But sometimes the condescension was a little annoying.
That’s not funny at all.
Part of the reason the line is funny is because of the subtext: Sam is out of his element - if CJ had been on TV it would have been a different situation altogether.
IIRC, Sam had been on Capitol Beat many times and the host was giving Ainsley “tips” in case she got nervous and froze up.
Plus “you got beat up by a girl” is a classic line that little boys have said to each other forever. Hearing it out of the mouths of White House staffers is what makes it funny.
You didn’t say condescension, you accused Sorkin of misogyny.
And then told us how you’d have written a better script.
Peace, dude. I am rewatching the show now and am enjoying it thoroughly. It’s not perfect, but some episodes come damn close and some hit the floor with a thud.
Although I loved all of these powerful and poignant moments, my all time favorite scene was this brief one between Allison Janney and Kristen Chenowith:
CJ: “What are you — 4’10?”
Annabeth: “4’11.”
CJ: “I can’t believe we’re the same species.”
Using the word misogyny is going to have a lot of people jumping down your throat but… I agree. It grates on re-watching.
And *what *is Sorkin’s weird obsession with Ladies Be Shoppin’?
The one I also like in that same episode is Ron Swanson convincing…Josh? that we should spend tens of millions to build a hiking path for Wolves.
One of my favorites is a flashback scene from “In The Shadow of Two Gunmen” when Bartlet asks Leo why he’s making him run for president, when John Hoynes could do so much more for him:
Actually, there’s a lot of scenes in that episode. The Q&A Bartlet has in the town hall, where someone asks about a bill that he voted against: he pauses for a second, then says, “Yeah, I screwed you on that one.” And you see the look on Josh’s face as, for the first time, he sees that this is the guy who should be President.
Using the word ‘misogyny’ is a nasty accusation and, regardless of Sorkin and TWW, is a basic misreading of drama: it’s plain dumbass.
Sorkin has a character say something because that’s what that character would say. In the context of that characters life. Every character is not expressing Sorkin’s inner thoughts.
We recently had the same deal with Shakespeare - who was apparently anti-Semitic because a character expressed anti-Semitism, in an era of considerable anti-Semitism.
Besides all of that, it misses the subtlety of the relationship between Josh and Toby - two guys who have a throwing competition the loser of which a to say ‘I work at the White House’ to strangers for the rest of the day. They have competitions to see who can get a newcomer to say a particular word on their first day, etc, etc. They like being pretending to be boys together - presumably because it offsets what they actually do in their jobs.
Just dumbass.
Sorry, missed the edit window.
One scene from the finale: Donna, the new First Lady’s Chief of Staff, is being escorted by a couple of WH ushers. They show her a very nice office. Donna nods in approval. “Yes, I think the First Lady will like this.”
The usher coughs. “Uh, Miss Moss, this is your office.”
The look on Donna’s face is this fantastic combination “Oh Lord” and “You go, girl!” 
Leo telling an annoying British diplomat that there’s “no smoking in this hemisphere.”
[QUOTE=ivylass;188/?26426]
I don’t know…sometimes Sorkin’s misogyny gets a little wearing. Both CJ and Ainsley sat in wet paint during the SOTU after party (I think that’s what it was) despite the wet paint sign. None of the men were dumb enough to do that.
It would have been funnier to say, “Sam’s getting beat up by a Republican.”
[/QUOTE]
Do you think CJ would have been promotoed to Chief of Staff if Sorkin had still been involved in the show?
Oh, christ, every scene with Lord John Marbury- every second he is on screen is one of my favorite moments from the show. When actor Roger Rees died a few months ago, it was this character who I thought about the most. Loved him on this show.
“Abigail! May I grasp your breasts!?”
“You may kiss my cheek.”
Love me some Lord John.
Lord John Marbury: When we had a particular problem with someone, one solution we would try is to make him a maharajah. That’s a kind of a regional king. We would pay him off with an annual tribute and in return he would be loyal to the crown.
Leo McGarry: Lord Marbury, under our constitution the President is not empowered to create maharajahs.
Lord John Marbury: Yes, thank you for clearing that up, Leo. Having been educated at Cambridge and the Sorbonne I am, as you know, exceedingly stupid.
My bold.
This is my favorite moment in the whole series, and it sets the tone–idealism that believes it is possible to do good work within the real world of politics.
*Sounds like the current election climate. 
Season 2 of The West Wing is one of the greatest seasons of any show, ever - one of the few “perfect seasons” that is flawless from start to finish. And it has some of my favorite television moments of all time. Josh recruiting Sam from the law firm (what was its name again? :p). Margaret’s near-coup d’etat, and Leo’s incredulous response. Ainsley’s drunken first meeting with the President. Bartlet’s gift to Charlie. Josh’s emotional breakdown intercut with Yo Yo Ma’s performance. Toby confronting Bartlet about his multiple sclerosis. Leo’s reaction to Mrs. Landingham’s death. The entirety of “Two Cathedrals.”
But I want to call out one moment in particular, which always, ALWAYS kills me. And it’s a subtle one. Bartlet has called the press conference where he will announce that he has MS. It’s pouring rain outside. As the staff prepares to leave the White House, Charlie rushes to the President’s side with his coat. Bartlet refuses the coat. And in a beautiful moment of solidarity, Charlie leaves his own coat off as well - the only member of the White House staff to do so. Because that’s what sons do for their fathers.
See, this always annoys me. How many things does Bartlett clear up here? If Ritchie is an idiot for thinking two words are one big one, what is Bartlett for describing that very point as “a couple of things”? It’s one thing. Both candidates are clearly confused about the difference between two and one. It bodes ill for America. When your point is that your opponent can’t or won’t count, it’s quite important to avoid getting your own count wrong.
I liked the live Santos/Vinnick debate - it was stunt TV, but it was done well.