[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> no knowledge of who wrote which parts anymore
> > >
> > > Spoilers For West Wing Finale
> > >
> > > >> > > *
> > > >> > > *
> > > >> > > **
> > > >> > > *
> > > >> > > *
> > > >> > > *
> > > >> > > *
> > > >> > > **
> > > >> > > *
> > > >> > > **
> > > >> > > *
> > > >> > > *
> > > >> > > *
> > > >> > > **
> > > >> > > *
> > > >> > > *
> > > >> > > *
> > > >> >
> > > >
> > > >Apparently we did... its -still- in the air (although I'm pretty certain
> > > >I know where it's going to go..)
>
> > Well, I gather he's going to run again - the whole backstory of he and
> > Mrs Landingham and the equal pay for male and female workers... he puts
> > his hands in his pockets and smiles...
>
> > > character-driven show, and a show sitting atop the weekly ratings, nobody
> > > was about to conduct a complete cast overhaul. This show is obviously
> > > going to be continued next season, and that means that Bartlett is
> running
> > > again.
> >
> > True.. but then, wouldn't it also be interesting to have a profile of a
> > president who's NOT running?
> >
> > > What's more, is that by the end of this episode, the decision was
> obvious.
> > > This whole episode was about Bartlett facing up to the challenge of
> > > running again, and in so doing, atoning for the fact that he did not face
> > > up to his father when he was in school. If Bartlett weren't going to
> > > change his mind, then this whole episode didn't have a point.
> >
> > I agree that its pretty clear from the episode he's running again, but I
> > don't think it's to atone for that thing with his father.. I think that
> > scene was to show that he has some weakness in him that he's struggling
> > to face - that episode with his father was pretty faceless and generic
>
> Question and a bit of devil's advocate at the same time-
>
> In the early scenes with the young pres/Mrs. L, she know he would "do it"
> because of his behaviors, but do what? The harder thing? The "right" thing?
> Stand up to his dad? Did I assume this or was it specifically mentioned?
> (the VCR was not running at this house, as a matter of fact it has taken to
> eating tapes this weekend).
Uh... if you didn't see it, how can we talk about it? :)
-j-
