The West Wing debate

If you've not yet watched this week's episode of The West Wing, you will definitely not want to follow me below the fold. If you have, c'mon in and let's talk about it.

It was a nice premise, but the only place it's likely ever to happen is on the set of a television show or a movie. No way would a modern presidential candidate expose him/herself to that kind of unscripted setting. Too many things to go wrong, and not nearly enough payback to make it worthwhile. Presidential debates, after all, even in fiercely contested election years like 2004, get lousy ratings. I think even hockey has a higher Nielsen rating.

I'm surprised the writers put the line in Alan Alda's mouth about how Abraham Lincoln never had to contend with debate rules. The writing staff of The West Wing is usually pretty good with historical fact. But they missed on this one. The Lincoln-Douglas debates in 1858 are perhaps his most famous oratorical exercise--but they had rules, as the transcripts provided by the National Park Service make clear. The first man to speak in each of the debates was given an hour. His opponent then got an hour and a half, followed by half an hour for rebuttal for the first speaker. The first speaking position rotated between the two men throughout the series of debates. (And if you thought the audience at the Santos-Vinick debate was rowdy, you should read the transcripts of the Lincoln-Douglas debates--to say nothing of the press coverage both candidates got afterwards.)

On the "key" question, who won it, I thought Santos sneaked out a victory by a nose. He never lost his cool the way Vinick did during the campaign finance exchange: and unlike Vinick, he actually came out in favor of a few things. Santos' characterization of Vinick as a naysayer in his closing statement was right on in my opinion.

Speaking of closing statements, Vinick should fire whoever wrote his for him--or go back to debate camp if that was one he's supposed to have extemporized. It bore little relationship to the debate he'd just been having with Santos, and that cheesy line at the end about being for freedom, while it might sell OK with the tighty righties, is only going to make moderates (to say nothing of liberals) think of all the freedoms he (and this goes double for his creepy wingnut running mate) is unwilling to allow us to have. Like the freedom to marry whom we choose, or the freedom to adopt a child if we happen to be gay. And of course, the logical thing for the Santos campaign to do would be to come out with a series of ads posing the vital question of how Senator Vinick can call himself pro-choice, can go out on national television and close his first debate with a promise to stand for freedom--and still be seeking the nomination of a party that refuses to allow women to make choices about their own health and welfare without standing over their shoulder and forcing them to say "Mother, may I?" at every turn.

Forrest Sawyer, like most of the mainstream media talking-heads these days, was utterly ineffectual as a moderator. Not only did he let the candidates run roughshod over him, he totally lost control of the debate for most of the hour. Even after the candidates agreed to chuck the prearranged rules, he was supposed to ask the questions in turn. He forgot to alternate questions, and all told I don't think he got out more than half a dozen. Most of the time he sat back and watched while Santos and Vinick went after each other, and then stepped in when things were just starting to get interesting. His lecturing the audience accomplished nothing either, except to waste even more time than they allegedly did by applauding.

So. That's my $0.03. What do you think?

Comments

[Elayne Riggs]

I think you're critiquing what the characters are saying as though it wasn't scripted. I would agree, however, that the lines Sawyer was given to speak didn't have that much internal consistency, although I think he acquitted himself well as a non-actor (in the Hollywood sense rather than the TelePrompter sense). As expected given his stage experience, Alda did a much better acting job, while Smits looked a bit lost here and there (particularly when he briefly looked up at the ceiling expecting a boom mike, before the stage folks "spontaneously" gave him a handheld cordless). I thought the ideas put forth from Smits' character were better ideas, but I think Alda's acting pushed the episode further into his corner.

[Mustang Bobby]

Three things kept creeping into my mind as I watched. The first was that I had to remind myself that this was series TV and not the real thing. They got the atmospherics right, including the occasional stumbles over words and phrases. I kept forgetting that we are in the closing days of the Bartlet administration and it came as bit of a shock to hear Santos refer to "President Bartlet." That's a testimony to the skills of the creative team.

The second thing was shaking off the previous roles both actors have played that have stuck in my mind. I first saw Jimmy Smits play Othello at the Colorado Shakespeare Festival and in spite of everything else I've seen him in (L.A. Law and NYPD Blue) I still see him as the Moor of Venice. And I am still seeing Alan Alda as Hawkeye Pierce; that may be because I watch a couple of hours of M*A*S*H on the Hallmark Channel each afternoon when I get home. But I think they were able to rise above those roles and I really heard the characters coming through.

Finally, it was truly sad to get to the end of the debate and realize that these men were not my choices in the next election. I could find worth in both candidates and I was happy to see Santos say things that I had wished both Gore and Kerry had said during their campaign, and while I felt that Vinick was doing more repetition of his stump speech, at least he sounded like he had thought of what he was going to say. I knew that if I had these choices, I knew I would be voting for someone as opposed to against the other one.

[Andrea]

I'm not looking.... I'm not looking....