Talk:Commander in Chief (TV series)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

TV This article is within the scope of WikiProject Television, which collaborates on television programs and related subjects on Wikipedia.

Contents

[edit] Liberal Bullshit

I'm pretty sure that's what this is. I think this show'll get cancelled, I'm just saying it here to keep myself from vandalising, which of course I'd never do anyway. But really its a stupid idea for a show, total liberal propaganda. If this show lasts more than a few episodes, I will probably boycott television. I'm just saying this show will have a non-NPOV.Private Butcher 00:44, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia is not a chatroom - Jord 01:09, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

Haha. Rock'n'roll. Ereinion 01:17, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

Oh yes, a woman president - what a terribly liberal idea! This comment is the much greater bullshit after all... -- Imladros 04:52, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

i don't think that's the liberal part. i doubt the woman president plot would even get to a producer's desk if it was meant to promote a condoleeza rice candidacy. no, the liberal part is the part where progressives, who are intollerant of ideological difference as a matter of principal, typically have to create an fantacy alternative to reality in which the american people selected one of them to lead the country. the gender twist doesn't serve the cause of gender equality. rather, its meant to help us think "hilliary 2008". opposing a former maoist campus radical's ascent to the highest office in the land has really nothing to do with gender, but your response was typical of a progressive sadly, which is why clinton herself cannot campaign in an honest and straightforward manner.
Fine its Feminist Bullshit, since she's a proud woman who's trying to be oppressed by Donald Sutherland's character, by making her leave the presidency, but she won't do it. No she can't do it, she's a woman she is proud, hear her roar! Private Butcher 15:02, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
Parent is using very strong words, but I cannot but wonder if there hasn't been any noted critisism of this series? Perhaps in the USA where it has been broadcast for a few months. I mean, having watched a few episodes, I find it so politically correct and sugar sweet that it's sickening. Just thought other people might have had similar thoughts. Bromskloss 00:36, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Deleting bias

I have deleted the most biased comments in the article

[edit] First Gentleman

The article refers to President Allen's husband as the "First Gentleman". Is there a source for this? I was listening pretty carefully to the episode to see if he would get that title or some other, and I did not hear that phrase used at all. Did I miss it, or perhaps I should edit the article?--Keeves 11:47, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

It is not based on the show but on expected practice. The article on First Lady of the United States is quite explicit that in the event of a female president one of two things would occur. Either a female relative of the President would be first lady or her husband would be first gentleman. It is quite clear that her husband is taking on the roles of first lady and would therefore be first gentleman. - Jord 14:11, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
It was confirmed in the newest episode as "First Gentleman." K1Bond007 02:07, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] General of the Army

Slightly misleading, I think. Warren Keaton should be referred to as a "former Army General," since the rank General of the Army has not been held since 1950. --Eric 17:21, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Name change

The name of the show is not Commander-in-Chief but instead Commander in Chief. I can provide a screenshot if necessary. I will move the article sometime in the next 24 hours if there are no objections to the move. - Scm83x 10:01, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

  • Agree. I was wondering why the dashes were there in the first place. Sfufan2005 16:22, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
  • I agree. Also, shouldn't it be Commander in Chief (television) ??? i don't like the {Tv Series) part....check if other series have it also..I don't think the West Wing article has it.<<Coburn_Pharr>> 18:54, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
  • A lot of shows have the (TV series) (e.g. Lost, Rome) thing, but a lot don't like you've said The West Wing. I would have no problem with the (television) though. Sfufan2005 00:43, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
Moved. Hope everyone's OK with it. Sfufan2005 00:45, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Copy editing

What's the reason for the sudden call for copy editing? The article seems find to me. I checked over any spelling errors and there seems to be none at this time. Sfufan2005 22:57, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

I now see the errors and am in the process of fixing them. Sfufan2005 23:02, 19 December 2005 (UTC)


[edit] Mislink

The link to "Vince Taylor" is pretty obviously NOT the Vince Taylor from this show. The same goes for "Jim Gardner," who I don't think is an anchor on Philadelphia TV in his spare time. le 09:11, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Suspension of Disbelief

Take this for what it's worth, but as someone who has a BA in Political Science, the premise upon which the show is based seems somewhat unrealistic. We are expected to believe that a conservative Republican chose a registered Independent to be his running mate in a hotly contested election. That is something that just does not happen - it's difficult enough to get a political party to accept a running mate from another "wing" of the same party, let alone someone who is not a member of the party at all. Spotts1701 00:10, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Well what about if Allen was a Republican but disagreed with some stuff and left the party? That's the case of Jeffords in the Senate right now. He is still rather conservative in some issues. I don't know, as a student of political sciences I find it more credible that in our present political reality that an independent is chosen for running-mate rather than a member of the opposition.<<Coburn_Pharr>> 14:02, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
Especially since Teddy Bridges would later express such dissatisfaction with her, shouldn't the plot details of the pick be mentioned in the article? -Fsotrain09 06:24, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
Mackenzie and Rod were Republicans; Rod may still be. Allen was approached by local Republican party leaders to run for Congress as an Independent (she thought they wanted Rod, which is how we know he was a Republican too). The reason is that a Republican from the far-right was going to inevitably win the nomination, but they didn't want him to win the seat. Mackenzie apparently never changed her affiliation back to Republican when she left Congress, nor when Bridges brought her on as his running mate; we don't know why. As for why Bridges did it, and how the party accepted it, remember that Bridges was a very popular VP; he had the Republican vote locked up. What he needed were swing voters. Mac's presence on the ticket attracted moderates and probably a few pro-woman Democrats who just wanted to see a woman elected. And really, that's all VPs are worth these days -- what extra constituencies can they bring to the ticket? Powers 13:15, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Can someone clean up the first paragraph?

The description of its #1 status, or lack thereof, is particularly convoluted. I'd make an attempt, but my head hurts at the thought of unraveling that syntactic knot. Moncrief 02:29, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Can it at least be moved from the introdution? Not only is it a syntactic knot, but one displayed in the article's lead! -Fsotrain09 06:26, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Lack of Balance in Controversy section

One sentence of a criticism, three sentences defending against the criticism - that's not balance. I'm going to add two more sentences on the critique side, pointing out that lead writer Steve Cohen served in President Clinton's press office and was Ms. Clinton's deputy director of communications. Also that two former Clinton White House staffers - national security advisor Sandy Berger and social secretary Capricia Marshall, are advisors for the show. Finally the right-wing charge is a political label that can be replaced with "conservative", and that correction doesn't add a new sentence keeping the balance at 3-3.

I agree about the lack of balance in the controversy section and it's important to try to keep this part neutral. Pointing out the political affiliations of the creators seems and the charges seems appropriate. Also some of the criticisms have come from the left-of-center New Republic that said that this was a thinly veiled campaign commercial for a “Hillary 08” campaign. My only other suggestion would be to provide links to back up the criticisms and defenses of the show as this section currently is unsourced. --Thorleywinston 17:15, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Casting Rumors

I heard from someone that Glenn Close was originlly selected for the role of President Allen. Can anyone verify that? Arbiteroftruth 21:25, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Character list

I appreciate User:Matty1019's exhaustive character list, but is it really necessary to list every single character who ever appeared on the show? Powers 15:30, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

  • I agree, there is no reason for having all the characters. Let's name only the main ones.<<Coburn_Pharr>> 19:48, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
  • I disagree, the more the better. I often use Wikipedia to look up information on a television show if I start watching it in the middle of the series and find it invaluable to bring me up to speed. Also by listing additional characters, it provides a framework for someone to flesh out their descriptions and backgrounds should they become reoccurring or involved in some important part of the story.--Thorleywinston 17:13, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Positions tree

Im thinking of doing a sort of family tree to show the positions of the characters starting with the highest first and then the lowest (which are of importence). —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Samaster1991 (talk • contribs) .


[edit] Rewording On Presidential Eligibility

The wording is misleading in the section on how many times Allen could potentially run for the office of the presidency after completing Bridges' unexpired term. She could actually run and lose as many times as she wanted. The way it's worded now, it says she could only run once or twice depending on how much time had elapsed before she took over. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.32.76.92 (talk • contribs) .

Technically, you're correct, but the text as written is correct if one assumes that she would not run again after losing (former presidents rarely do so) and that she would not run for a term she could not Constitutionally serve (which would be silly). Powers 19:38, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] GOP whinning!

You all are so pathetic. Your just ticked off because when "West Wing" went off the air you were relived because now you could go back to IGNORING the mess you have made in the real White House, without being reminded on national T.V.every week. The station has made a huge mistake and given in to the right wing neo-con whinning! Shame on them. I hope they rethink this decision and come to their senses. So grow up, we tolerate WAAAY more then you do. like O'rielly the liar, Raush the druggy, Hannity the nut. I guess they should be removed because they are GOP-ers. But then your party is very good at removing our constitusional rights, like freedom of speech! Grow up and stop your incessant whinning. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.189.33.21 (talk • contribs) 22:12 15 June 2006 (UTC. Haha, "whinning." This is a perfect example of that particular liberal's "intelligence." How does cancelling a show take away somebody's constitutional rights, BTW? Raush? O'rielly? lol. Pathetic!Politician818 04:06, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

The correct spelling of the word is "whining" which has one "n". Also, could you please stop phrasing your comments as attacks? Wikipedia is not a Repubs vs Democrats mudslinging zone. Please be civil to your fellow contributors, regardless of their political leanings.
Wikipedia has a policy against personal attacks which can be found here. There is also a policy agianst incivility which can be found here. Thanks. — Nathan (talk) 00:31, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Was the show canceled?

I watched the show and I just want to know why this ok show was canceled? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Alakey2010 (talk • contribs) .
It was cancelled for a variety of reasons: (1) ABC put the show on a long hiatus in February which caused a ratings decline when it came back and (2) there were problems on the set, first with series creator Rod Lurie who was having trouble with deadlines then ABC hired a new showrunner Steven Bochco who took the show into a different direction and left the show after having a disagreement with ABC. By the time Bocho left, ABC had replaced the show with a third showrunner and although the show returned somewhat to form, ratings were down which brings us to now. Sfufan2005 03:10, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
And of course, ratings were down because ABC moved the timeslot from Tuesdays. =) Powers 19:24, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
ABC just messed the show around too much. It had a great plot, great storyline and great cast. But ABC messed it up by changing producers, slot times etc. But according to ET a while back, Geena said if the CIC movie went well then ABC may consider more episodes.Samaster1991 18:53, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../c/o/m/Talk%7ECommander_in_Chief_%28TV_series%29_f8ec.html"