Commander in Chief: Gena Davis as President of the US

[russ_watters]

While watching game 6 tonight, I saw a preview for a new series this fall called "Commander in Chief", staring Gena Davis as President of the US. So here's a prediction: she will be a southern or midwestern liberal, possibly transplanted to the northeast, and a widower (having an adulterous husband would probably be too obvious). She'll be a strong leader (the name of the series implies it, but there is another reason why...) and a "good" democratic president (a la "The West Wing"), meaning a strong, good leader who makes tough decisions and acts tough when necessary.

Purpose? To get the American people used to the idea of a female Democratic President in order to make it feel more natural to vote for Hillary in 2008.

Too cynical? Has anyone heard/read what Martin Sheen was like while doing The West Wing? Yeah, I know he's a little nuts, but you get the impression listening to him that he not just thinks he could be President but thinks he is President. Beyond that, he played the part of a strong Democratic President (a contradiction in terms) in a time that required a strong President. What was John Kerry's big weakness? - the perception that he'd be weak in a time where strength was required.

 

[FredGarvin]

The mere thought of hearing that droning, monotone voice during campaigning...shudder...

Russ, you forgot Michael Douglas in 'American President.' I am sure that role will be a model for this show.

 

[Integral]

:uhh:

Russ,
Why did you leave the Navy?

 

[Art]

:uhh:

Russ,
Why did you leave the Navy?

I think it was something to do with too many cooks...
ref Russ' constant references to kitchen utensils - pots, kettles etc...

 

[kcballer21]

While watching game 6 tonight, I saw a preview for a new series this fall called "Commander in Chief", staring Gena Davis as President of the US. So here's a prediction: she will be a southern or midwestern liberal, possibly transplanted to the northeast, and a widower (having an adulterous husband would probably be too obvious). She'll be a strong leader (the name of the series implies it, but there is another reason why...) and a "good" democratic president (a la "The West Wing"), meaning a strong, good leader who makes tough decisions and acts tough when necessary.

Purpose? To get the American people used to the idea of a female Democratic President in order to make it feel more natural to vote for Hillary in 2008.

Too cynical? Has anyone heard/read what Martin Sheen was like while doing The West Wing? Yeah, I know he's a little nuts, but you get the impression listening to him that he not just thinks he could be President but thinks he is President. Beyond that, he played the part of a strong Democratic President (a contradiction in terms) in a time that required a strong President. What was John Kerry's big weakness? - the perception that he'd be weak in a time where strength was required.

That's quite the conspiracy theory Russ. Now, why does this network want Hillary Clinton to be President?

 

[cronxeh]

And what gives anyone an impression that a male President is better than a female President for the United States?

 

[Art]

And what gives anyone an impression that a male President is better than a female President for the United States?

Err Britain's experience with Magaret Thatcher

 

[brewnog]

Err Britain's experience with Magaret Thatcher

Touche!

 

[Rabid]

TV shows are first and foremost, written for profit. If the series doesn't get high enough ratings, it will be cancelled. Surely the creators of any script have the ability to include a political message and a number of shows can be considered conservative/liberal. (ie. 24, South Park, American President).
I would doubt if any show was written for the specific purpose of propoganda, whether it be to justify torture or getting a specific person elected. Shows may be written with an audience in mind, but how many conservatives who despise Hillary will watch "Commander in Chief" or how many liberals will watch 24 and change their views?
Personally, I would be more cynical about someone 'producing' news reports for the purpose of propoganda than a TV series.

 

[sid_galt]

Err Britain's experience with Magaret Thatcher

I thought she was a popular PM. Didn't she revive Britain's economy?

 

[Smurf]

I thought she was a popular PM. Didn't she revive Britain's economy?

no, shhhh SHHHHHH, don't say that! quick! edit that post! gah, nO! DON'T SAY THAT! FOR THE LOVE OF GOD DON'T START THIS AGAIN!

 

[russ_watters]

Russ, you forgot Michael Douglas in 'American President.' I am sure that role will be a model for this show.

I don't remember what his politics was like in that movie. There was something about an environmental bill, but I can't remember quite how that went.

Russ,
Why did you leave the Navy?

What does that have to do with anything?

That's quite the conspiracy theory Russ.

Yeah, I know its a stretch. What do I win if my predictions about the show's content are correct? See, that's what's different about me: I'm willing to make actual predictions and see if I'm right.

Now, why does this network want Hillary Clinton to be President?

She's a democrat and a likely candidate.

And what gives anyone an impression that a male President is better than a female President for the United States?

Nothing. Where did I suggest I thought that? This thread has nothing to do with whether a male or a female would be a better President.

Shows may be written with an audience in mind, but how many conservatives who despise Hillary will watch "Commander in Chief"...

That's exactly the point: a lot will. I watched "The West Wing" even though I snickered at the politics and and laughed at Sheen's off-camera shenanegans. But I thought about the politics. But how many people actually do that? How many people just watch for entertainment and don't even realize how it is shaping their opinions?

24...

I didn't watch 24 (the little of it I saw I though was a poorly done Tom Clancy immitation) - was there much overt politics in it? The President was black: statistically, the vast majority of black people and politicians are democrats (upwards of 90% vote that way). Perhaps that was done to make the politics of it more ambiguous (which I would consider a good thing)?

South Park

Tres and Matt are equal opportunity offenders and though I get the feeling they lean to the right, its not at all clear from their work. Team America mocked the war effort and actors at the same time. And last season on SP, there was the classic election allegory where the school had to choose between a giant douche and a turd sandwhich for their new mascot.

...or how many liberals will watch 24 and change their views?

Like I said, I don't know about 24, but you don't think there were at least a few people who watched The West Wing, liked Sheen's charater and thought, 'gee, we really need a President like him'? And regardless of whether the show was created for political reasons, Sheen certainly used it for advancing his ideology.

Personally, I would be more cynical about someone 'producing' news reports for the purpose of propoganda than a TV series.

Subtle propaganda is far more dangerous than overt propaganda.

 

[faust9]

The Hag from NY is not a likely candidate. The Dems---those who vote in primaries---know she has a snowballs chance in that fire and brimstone place. Hell, I'd vote FOR her just to torpedo the Dems if A GOOD moderate republican conservative runs. Ted Stevens, McCain, Hagel, or a handful of others. Wanting to see The big H run is nothing but wishful thinking.

My prediction is the republicans will field a Senator (there are a handful who have expressed a taste for the POTUS midnight snacks) versus a Democratic govenor. I personally see the Dems gaining seats in 06 because of the public distrust of the Congress and its insistance on sticking its nose where it doesn't belong. Dean is doing his job like a true republican party chair also(he took a page from the republican party play book). Dean is saying the dirty nasty things so potential candidates don't have to yet.

Don't expect Hil's face on the next play car no matter how this little TV drama plays out. She won't win. Most of the US knows this. Kerry was selected because he was seen as having a small chance of dethroning the self annoited king of nothing(GWB). Kerry lost because he ran a poor campaign. He didn't address issues put forth by the swift boat liars for bush. Kerry was tarnished by the 60 minutes report through no falt of his own. Kerry lost because he didn't get far enough out of the citys. Don't expect the Dems to do that kind of thing again.

The republicans will need to field a moderate. The American public is becoming disgrunteled with the far right. The scare tactics don't work anymore. The Dems will put forth a good candidate IMHO---not Clinton. We'll see another Senator vs Govenor but the senator will be a Republican this time around. I'd be willing to bet a buffalo nickel on this.

 

[Astronuc]

Purpose? To get the American people used to the idea of a female Democratic President in order to make it feel more natural to vote for Hillary in 2008.

Or Condoleeza Rice, maybe? Remember Elizabeth Dole ran in the Republican primaries. Or Nancy Pelosi? Or Kay Bailey Hutchison, Olympia Snowe, Susan Collins to name a few more.

Too cynical?

Yes!

Has anyone heard/read what Martin Sheen was like while doing The West Wing? Yeah, I know he's a little nuts, but you get the impression listening to him that he not just thinks he could be President but thinks he is President. Beyond that, he played the part of a strong Democratic President (a contradiction in terms) in a time that required a strong President. What was John Kerry's big weakness? - the perception that he'd be weak in a time where strength was required.

Well, we did have Ronald Reagan, and we have GW Bush, so why not Martin Sheen?

 

[Informal Logic]

The Hag from NY is not a likely candidate. The Dems---those who vote in primaries---know she has a snowballs chance in that fire and brimstone place. Hell, I'd vote FOR her just to torpedo the Dems if A GOOD moderate republican conservative runs. Ted Stevens, McCain, Hagel, or a handful of others. Wanting to see The big H run is nothing but wishful thinking.

My prediction is the republicans will field a Senator (there are a handful who have expressed a taste for the POTUS midnight snacks) versus a Democratic govenor. I personally see the Dems gaining seats in 06 because of the public distrust of the Congress and its insistance on sticking its nose where it doesn't belong. Dean is doing his job like a true republican party chair also(he took a page from the republican party play book). Dean is saying the dirty nasty things so potential candidates don't have to yet.

Don't expect Hil's face on the next play car no matter how this little TV drama plays out. She won't win. Most of the US knows this. Kerry was selected because he was seen as having a small chance of dethroning the self annoited king of nothing(GWB). Kerry lost because he ran a poor campaign. He didn't address issues put forth by the swift boat liars for bush. Kerry was tarnished by the 60 minutes report through no falt of his own. Kerry lost because he didn't get far enough out of the citys. Don't expect the Dems to do that kind of thing again.

The republicans will need to field a moderate. The American public is becoming disgrunteled with the far right. The scare tactics don't work anymore. The Dems will put forth a good candidate IMHO---not Clinton. We'll see another Senator vs Govenor but the senator will be a Republican this time around. I'd be willing to bet a buffalo nickel on this.

Hillary has been experimenting with more centristic remarks, etc., but if this does not work in gaining enough right wing support, the Dems would be stupid to nominate her. Biden has already thrown in his hat, Edwards maybe, there will be more over time. Obama needs more experience. I like Edwards, though I wish Evan Bayh was interested.

McCain is a moderate? He is very much in favor of Free Trade (pro-business), he supported the invasion of Iraq, he has supported private accounts versus SS, he has been lame about illegal immigration even though he is Senator of a state that is hard hit, etc. Whenever a politician runs unsuccessfully (this applies to Kerry as well), success remains unlikely (a stigma), and as mentioned before, his age will be a factor. In any event, if the GOP pushes a Bush Dynasty candidate (which includes Condi) or a fundamentalist such as Frist, the Dems will win for sure--no matter who they run, even Hillary.

As I have said before, I hope the Republicans continue to ignore the polls and keep trying to push their unpopular agenda. I hope the GOP keeps calling the Dems names and keep playing their little games, such as trying to nominate Bolton when Republicans were not even there to vote so they could justify Bush pulling his usual slime tactics during recess, and attempting their "bait and switch" with SS, etc. The people see it for what it is and may vote for any Dem candidate just to have balance again.

As for a TV show, I care about this as much as I care about all the other crap on TV. And I disagree that these programs influence politics more than news agencies such as FOX--a truly damaging influence in our country.

 

[BobG]

The Hag from NY is not a likely candidate. The Dems---those who vote in primaries---know she has a snowballs chance in that fire and brimstone place. Hell, I'd vote FOR her just to torpedo the Dems if A GOOD moderate republican conservative runs. Ted Stevens, McCain, Hagel, or a handful of others. Wanting to see The big H run is nothing but wishful thinking.

My prediction is the republicans will field a Senator (there are a handful who have expressed a taste for the POTUS midnight snacks) versus a Democratic govenor. I personally see the Dems gaining seats in 06 because of the public distrust of the Congress and its insistance on sticking its nose where it doesn't belong. Dean is doing his job like a true republican party chair also(he took a page from the republican party play book). Dean is saying the dirty nasty things so potential candidates don't have to yet.

Don't expect Hil's face on the next play car no matter how this little TV drama plays out. She won't win. Most of the US knows this. Kerry was selected because he was seen as having a small chance of dethroning the self annoited king of nothing(GWB). Kerry lost because he ran a poor campaign. He didn't address issues put forth by the swift boat liars for bush. Kerry was tarnished by the 60 minutes report through no falt of his own. Kerry lost because he didn't get far enough out of the citys. Don't expect the Dems to do that kind of thing again.

The republicans will need to field a moderate. The American public is becoming disgrunteled with the far right. The scare tactics don't work anymore. The Dems will put forth a good candidate IMHO---not Clinton. We'll see another Senator vs Govenor but the senator will be a Republican this time around. I'd be willing to bet a buffalo nickel on this.

It may not be smart for the Dems to nominate Hillary, but she has an excellent chance of winning the nomination, regardless. Once the general campaign starts, though, the idea of 'Slick Willy' moving back into the White House would definitely torpedo her chances. If Bill dies before the next election, Hillary becomes probable next president instead of just probable nominee. (Maybe the widow bit is a sublte hint from Hollywood to Hillary? :uhh: )

I think the show is more a reaction to the current political landscape than trying to drive it. Hillary projects a large enough image (on both left and right wing) that the possibility of being the first woman president is an afterthought instead of the issue. Rice's high visibility as Sec State probably has more of an effect on people's feelings about a woman president than a television show. Of course, considering the only series I've seen the last few years are Simpson's reruns (the newer episodes are trash), I wouldn't consider myself an expert on the impact TV series have on people.

McCain is a moderate?

No he is not. He's more 'independent' than moderate. The same goes for Hagel. That should bode well for either. Both would usually appeal to the party conservatives as mainstream Republicans while moderates and liberals would see their independence on selected issues as signs that they are moderate in all their views. At the very least, both are seen as willing to fight for their beliefs.

The problem this time around is there are no 'mainstream Republicans' to appeal to. The Republican Party is becoming as fragmented as the Democrats have been. Each segment - the religious right, fiscal conservatives, hawks, etc - will have their own favorite candidate and they'll eat each other in a feeding frenzy - especially if Hillary's the opponent! Even someone with McCain's or Giuliani's stature will be lucky to survive the free-for-all.