Indulge this political junkie as I re-visit the new series on ABC, Commander-In-Chief. I have reviewed the show before.
Despite Rush Limbaugh's recent suggestion that this is intended to pave the way for a Hillary Clinton presidency, I doubt that ABC would risk the money and their reputation for a presidential candidate, regardless of who that might be.
Even if such a thing is even possible, so what? Conservatives, and I consider myself one, are always bitching about West Wing and such as being "too liberal". I argue, "get up off of that big business money and sponsor your own damn conservative series and stop bitching that the liberals have the lock on political TV shows." We've got freedom of speech here, in case the conservatives don't know it.
So, if Commander-In-Chief is somehow the brainchild of Hillary Clinton's campaign, and if the notion that the series will somehow pave the way for a female President (the premise of the show), then more power to her for being so darn clever.
Rumors and innuendo aside, I'd like to visit two recent episodes of Commander-In-Chief. One was aired on 11/01/05 and the other on 11/08/05. I have some thoughts on the political process as depicted on the series as well as some of the ill-thought premises.
First, let me say that, like so many conservatives who disavow watching such "liberal" mouthpieces, I do watch the show with a passion and quite enjoy it. And, there are some serious truths revealed in the series.
I like the way the writers portray "the first man". This is a character that absolutely calls out for ridicule and derision. In Commander-In-Chief, the husband of "Mac", played by Geena Davis, is portrayed very believably. Sure he wrestles with his role in the grand scheme of it all. He also looks to find his niche in the world, once actively courted to be the Commissioner of Baseball. That scenario makes this First Husband come off as intelligent and capable on his own. That he turns down the offer to work alongside his wife in her presidential duties is a plot that works well. The viewer understands this fellow is no slouch and has other options than being Nanny to the President of the United States.
Article comments
1 - Brent McKee
First of all it's Sutherland not Southerland, and he's one of the best actors on TV today - a truly brilliant character actor. The point is that he's working with what he's given.
As far as the character of Nathan Templeton, I think we're seeing some moderation in the protrayal with the addition of Samantha Eggar as his wife. In the political arena he's a power grabbing SOB and it doesn't matter which party he belongs to because there are power grabbing SOBs in every political party on the planet. He's unbelievable on in so far as they've made him a Republican (although as we learned recently he had been a Democrat) with the clear implication that only Republicans suffer from this sort of person. What would be better for the series is something that "The West Wing" did almost from the beginning - show Republicans who are also dedicated public servants who are willing to listen and not out for number one. Of course that would defeat the principal concept of the show which is the personal confrontations between the "virtuous" and "principled" Mackenzie Allen and Nathan Templeton, who lusts for power and is determined to destroy the person who kept him from it when it was in his grasp.
2 - Silas Kain
Actually I find Sutherland's portrayal of Templeton right on the money. High ranking members of Congress tend to be full of themselves with delusions of grandeur. They'll stop at nothing to maintain the power and political advantage. As "nice" as Denny Hastert comes across, don't kid yourselves. When push comes to shove Denny Hastert can make Tom Delay look like an altar boy at Christmas Mass. At least with Newt, you knew that he was a power whore. Davis' portrayal of the first female President gives me pause. This nation could use a politician like MacKenzie Allen as its leader. Unfortunately, we dont elect our leaders based on their character or vision. Oh, we think we do, but come on now. Does anyone honestly believe that George W. Bush was elected because of his character? He was appointed President after the 2000 election. He may have legitimately won in 2004 but, face it, what the hell did he have for competition? Pretty boy Kerry? The ex-soldier? The Bay State Messiah? Puh-leeze. There are times when I wish Ross Perot did get elected President. Maybe we need a President who suffers from Napoleon Syndrome. Maybe a squeaky, short, Munchkin type guy would have the balls to bite America in the ass and cause it to wake up. Better yet, maybe Hillary Clinton is what America needs after all. Dear God, I can't believe I said that. Quick, somebody, get me my immigration papers...
...to Canada.