The highly anticipated live episode of the hit TV show “West Wing†promises to be interesting and entertaining in many ways. It’s not often that you see live television shows. So many things can go wrong, from equipment malfunction to actors for getting their lines. But this episode is also special because it’s taking place as a presidential debate – a live, unscripted presidential debate.
I just read a USA Today article about the show, and the way the article starts out, you’d think they were talking about a real presidential debate. My heart began to beat a little faster in anticipation, before realization set in, and I remembered that there won’t be anymore debates for a while.
Isn’t it sad, though, that a TV show gets it in a way that real politics don’t? Debates these days are scripted affairs that are really nothing more than an extension of each candidate’s stump speech. The biggest reason people tune into them is to see if someone is going to mess up, or go off-script. There’s nothing genuine or spontaneous about them. When Bloomberg and Ferrer had their last debate, Ferrer was called “feisty†in at least two newspapers that I saw, for maybe going off the script a little, and going after the mayor a bit aggressively (after all, what does he have to lose?). But that’s incredibly condescending, isn’t it? You call a little old lady who can still make it to the market everyday feisty. The best thing about this show is that it’s going to do what most Americans have been waiting for, for a really long time. A real fistfight, without the fists. It’s too bad it’s all fiction.
Laura C. Grow @ November 3, 2005 - 11:16am
"You call a little old lady who can still make it to the market everyday feisty."
I think Josh (Bradley Whitford) made the same point about the word "spry" in Sunday's episode.
And I don't know if I'd vote for Alan Alda or Jimmy Smits -- I like both their characters better than either Bush or Kerry. TV definitely gets it, in this case.
»