From West Wing to the real thing
Chris J Dixon
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/feb/21/barackobama.uselections2008
Chris
--
Chris J Dixon Nottingham UK
ch...@cdixon.me.uk
Have dancing shoes, will ceilidh.
theget
> >...For what those West Wing fans stunned by the similarity between the fictitious Matthew Santos and the real-life Barack Obama have not known is that the resemblance is no coincidence. When the West Wing scriptwriters first devised their fictitious presidential candidate in the late summer of 2004, they modelled him in part on a young Illinois politician - not yet even a US senator - by the name of Barack Obama
>
> http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/feb/21/barackobama.uselections2008
Nice article.
My recollection is that Vinick was going to win until there was a nuke
accident at a power plant.
Is that the case here too? Or do the similarities stop there?
Theget
mellonmarshall
no Vinick was going to win but the JOhn spencer died and they didn't
like that he lose both his running mate and the election
having said that they went backwards and forwards in the writing room
on who would win for months before picking which one would do win
Jim_*_
<f4db6ddc-84ab-4f8c...@s37g2000prg.googlegroups.com>,
mellonmarshall <mellonm...@gmail.com> wrote:
There is not a chance the writers were going to have a liberal democrat
lose. That would have gone against all 7 years of the show and what they
preached.
Spencer dying just gave them a reason hat looks better and sells better.
mbruno
The Vinick/McCain and Obama/Santos analogies have been discussed
before in other threads on this forum. Indeed, the similarities are
striking. There are however a few important differences.
First of all, Vinick was far more liberal than McCain in social
issues. In fact, Vinick was pro-choice, whereas McCain is pro-life. On
the other hand, Vinick lacked McCain's military background. On the
Democratic side, the reverse was true. Santos was a marine who served
in the Gulf War, whereas Obama has never served in the armed forces
and is indeed far less experienced than Santos (a former mayor of
Houston and a far more active Congressman).
I guess the main similarities are probably that Vinick, like McCain,
was an elderly senator who won the nomination despite the opposition
from the conservative wing of the Republican party and the religious
right. Santos, like Obama, was on the other hand a non-white candidate
who started out as an underdog and eventually beat the early favorites
for the Democratic nomination.
Unlike Santos though, I doubt Obama will have to wait for a brokered
Democratic convention to seal the nomination (he will have beaten
Hillary before that and she will probably drop out of the race).
Another important difference is that Vinick was initially expected to
win the general election on a landslide (if you recall, Bruno expected
him to carry all 50 states). In the real world, if anything, Obama is
the early favorite in the fall, although the race, according to the
national polls, is currently much tighter.
It will be interesting to see who McCain and Obama will pick as VPs.
McCain will probably go with a conservative, as Vinick did in The West
Wing, to solidify the Republican base. As for Obama, all bets are off
(I don't see any real-world equivalent of Leo around).
As for Hillary, her failure to win the nomination, apart from her own
personal flaws as a candidate and poorly managed campaign, does
signify that America is not ready yet for a female president (we can
debate that later in greater detail). Again, if TV gives us a clue,
the audience debacle of the short-lived "Commander in Chief" series
with Geena Davis already previewed that.
mellonmarshall
> In article
> <f4db6ddc-84ab-4f8c-9106-958a247ad...@s37g2000prg.googlegroups.com>,
what makes you say that been as the writers rooms were from both side
of the political spertum
Jim_*_
Chris J Dixon <ch...@cdixon.me.uk> wrote:
> >...For what those West Wing fans stunned by the similarity between the
> >fictitious Matthew Santos and the real-life Barack Obama have not known is
> >that the resemblance is no coincidence. When the West Wing scriptwriters
> >first devised their fictitious presidential candidate in the late summer of
> >2004, they modelled him in part on a young Illinois politician - not yet
> >even a US senator - by the name of Barack Obama
>
> http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/feb/21/barackobama.uselections2008
>
> Chris
Except Santos was Hispanic and Obama is White & Black. Santos was
Christian and Obama is Christian/Muslim. Santos was married to a a white
person and Obama is married to a black woman. Santos was a multi termed
Congressman (5 terms?) and was Mayor of his city while Obama is a
partial single term Senator with no executive experience.
Yep, I guess the similarities are endless.
Dipshit.
Jim_*_
<f4db6ddc-84ab-4f8c...@s37g2000prg.googlegroups.com>,
mellonmarshall <mellonm...@gmail.com> wrote:
Oh bullshit. The liberal writers were never going to have a conservative
republican beat a liberal. In their world there could never be a greater
injustice. Spencer assuming room temperature simply gave them a reason
for morons to believe.
In the real world a VP candidate kicking off on election day would
probably have doomed his ticket to failure as people have no clue who
they are voting for.
SteveL
The article says point blank that they modeled Santos on Obama.
That you can find (*gasp*) differences between the two hardly
invalidates the article or makes the OP a "dipshit".
You however throw in that discredited canard about Obama being a
muslim as though it was simple common knowledge.
Now *that* qualifies for "dipshit" status.
(I think you'll find that while Obama's father was nominally a muslim,
he had rejected all faith before Jr was even born)
http://urbanlegends.about.com/library/bl_barack_obama_muslim.htm
http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/muslim.asp
Jim_*_
> >Except Santos was Hispanic and Obama is White & Black. Santos was
> >Christian and Obama is Christian/Muslim. Santos was married to a a white
> >person and Obama is married to a black woman. Santos was a multi termed
> >Congressman (5 terms?) and was Mayor of his city while Obama is a
> >partial single term Senator with no executive experience.
> >
> >Yep, I guess the similarities are endless.
> >
> >Dipshit.
>
> The article says point blank that they modeled Santos on Obama.
>
> That you can find (*gasp*) differences between the two hardly
> invalidates the article or makes the OP a "dipshit".
>
> You however throw in that discredited canard about Obama being a
> muslim as though it was simple common knowledge.
>
> Now *that* qualifies for "dipshit" status.
>
> (I think you'll find that while Obama's father was nominally a muslim,
> he had rejected all faith before Jr was even born)
>
> http://urbanlegends.about.com/library/bl_barack_obama_muslim.htm
> http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/muslim.asp
Right, TWW people modeled Santos on a Ill Ststae Representative. Oh
please. Are you a friggin moron who belives everything you read.
You MUST be a liberal because you sure are stupid enough.
Obama's old man was a Muslim, which makes Obabma a Muslim. He may not be
a practicing Muslim but he is still a Muslim since it is a bloodline.
Dipshit.
SteveL
>
>> >Except Santos was Hispanic and Obama is White & Black. Santos was
>> >Christian and Obama is Christian/Muslim. Santos was married to a a white
>> >person and Obama is married to a black woman. Santos was a multi termed
>> >Congressman (5 terms?) and was Mayor of his city while Obama is a
>> >partial single term Senator with no executive experience.
>> >
>> >Yep, I guess the similarities are endless.
>> >
>> >Dipshit.
>>
>> The article says point blank that they modeled Santos on Obama.
>>
>> That you can find (*gasp*) differences between the two hardly
>> invalidates the article or makes the OP a "dipshit".
>>
>> You however throw in that discredited canard about Obama being a
>> muslim as though it was simple common knowledge.
>>
>> Now *that* qualifies for "dipshit" status.
>>
>> (I think you'll find that while Obama's father was nominally a muslim,
>> he had rejected all faith before Jr was even born)
>>
>> http://urbanlegends.about.com/library/bl_barack_obama_muslim.htm
>> http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/muslim.asp
>
>Right, TWW people modeled Santos on a Ill Ststae Representative. Oh
>please. Are you a friggin moron who belives everything you read.
That all you've got?
Then attack the article, idiot. Not the person who posted it.
Say why the quotes from it are lies. Give reasons.
Say why West Wing producer and writer Eli Attie is lying.
The people who wrote the show *themselves* say they based Santos on
Obama!
But no, it's all bullshit because, why? Because YOU SAY SO.
>
>You MUST be a liberal because you sure are stupid enough.
Sez the person who can't direct his anger at the right target or even
read for comprehension.
You should read
http://www.apa.org/journals/features/psp7761121.pdf
Unskilled and Unaware of It: How Difficulties in Recognizing One's Own
Incompetence Lead to Inflated Self-Assessments
Justin Kruger and David Dunning
Department of Psychology
Cornell University
ABSTRACT:
...the authors found that participants scoring in the bottom quartile
on tests of humor, grammar, and logic grossly overestimated their test
performance and ability. Although their test scores put them in the
12th percentile, they estimated themselves to be in the 62nd.
>
>Obama's old man was a Muslim, which makes Obabma a Muslim. He may not be
>a practicing Muslim but he is still a Muslim since it is a bloodline.
So you're a racist too. Not surprised at all.
Needless to say (except to you) Islam is a religion not a race.
There's nothing in the "bloodline".
http://www.apa.org/journals/features/psp7761121.pdf
>
>Dipshit.
Jim_*_
SteveL <stev...@deletethisbitntlworld.com> wrote:
Just how far are you able to stick your head up your ass?
Dipshit.
mellonmarshall
> In article <ohyeah-E03129.13281309032...@news-server.nyroc.rr.com>,
> ohy...@nothere.com says...
>
>
>
> > In article <o4qdnTTVZrTOeU7anZ2dnUVZ_sakn...@giganews.com>,
>
> > Dipshit.
>
> Yup... you sure are.
>
> --- Cory
>
> P.S. - Grow the hell up already, "Jim".
yup but that would be too simple wouldn't it 8-)
Brett A. Pasternack
>
> I know this thread is, like, four months old. Read my post anyway,
> 'kay? ;-)
>
> In article <7caa7f32-800b-4f60-b913-3893d5769f50@
> 72g2000hsu.googlegroups.com>, br...@ele.ita.br says...
> > On 21 fev, 04:30, Chris J Dixon <ch...@cdixon.me.uk> wrote:
> > It will be interesting to see who McCain and Obama will pick as VPs.
> > McCain will probably go with a conservative, as Vinick did in The West
> > Wing, to solidify the Republican base. As for Obama, all bets are off
> > (I don't see any real-world equivalent of Leo around).
>
> I absolutely feel that Obama is going to choose Hillary as his running
> mate, and that that will end up backfiring on him somehow. Either he
> won't win the election, or Hillary will constantly try to upstage the
> man. I do not, for a second, believe she is going to go away quietly.
It's sad, but, yes, it does seem that Hillary may well put her own
interests above those of the party and her cause. I hope not, though. I
don't think Obama will tap her as a running mate; though. I think he'll
go for someone with a ton of experience, such as Joseph Biden or Sam
Nunn.
> > As for Hillary, her failure to win the nomination, apart from her own
> > personal flaws as a candidate and poorly managed campaign,
>
> Out of curiosity, when did Hillary "lose" the nomination?? IOW, at what
> point in her campaign did she make a fatal mistake and then from there
> on out it was all downhill for her?? I'd really like to hear peoples'
> opinions on this. It's actually the issue that brought me to post in
> the NG this morning.
I don't know if she made a fatal mistake. I think she always had a much
more difficult battle than was protrayed in the media; there was always
a lot of negative feeling toward her out there. I didn't think she'd get
as close to winning as she did.
> > does signify that America is not ready yet for a female president (we can
> > debate that later in greater detail). Again, if TV gives us a clue,
> > the audience debacle of the short-lived "Commander in Chief" series
> > with Geena Davis already previewed that.
>
> Let's get something straight. CiC flopped because Geena Davis is a
> LOUSY, HORRIBLE actress. Period.
I never watched CiC, but she certainly wasn't horrible in some of the
movies I've seen her in. Then again, being a good movie star isn't
necessarily the same thing as being a good TV star.