Follow TV Tropes

Following

History Headscratchers / TheWestWing

Go To

OR

Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None

Added DiffLines:

** Every Percy I have met has been black, it's not a common name for white people any more. Likewise, Scottish/English names like Fitzwallace are also very common among descendants of enslaved Africans because so many Scottish people lived in the American South.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None


** As for why we didn't see a scar... well, we probably have to chalk this one up to real life pressures of production; considering how rare it was to see either Josh or Donna outside of anything but a smart suit (or, indeed, anything that would reveal scars on their chests), they probably either forgot all about it over time or decided that trying to remember exactly where Josh or Donna should have a scar on a consistent basis for what would only amount to a handful of shots that weren't expressly intended to show the character's injuries for plot reasons anyway (which in turn would have meant more time for the actors in make-up, which in turn would snowball into how much time they had to shoot the scene(s) in question) just meant more effort with little to show for it; in the latter case, they gambled that most people wouldn't notice anyway and the ones who did just shrug and let it go without it affecting their overall enjoyment. [See also: why Kate Beckett in ''Series/{{Castle}}'' seems to have a magically reappearing/disappearing scar as well.]

to:

** As for why we didn't see a scar... well, we probably have to chalk this one up to real life pressures of production; considering how rare it was to see either Josh or Donna outside of anything but a smart suit (or, indeed, anything that would reveal scars on their chests), they probably either forgot all about it over time or decided that trying to remember exactly where Josh or Donna should have a scar on a consistent basis for what would only amount to a handful of shots that weren't expressly intended to show the character's injuries for plot reasons anyway (which in turn would have meant more time for the actors in make-up, which in turn would snowball into how much time they had to shoot the scene(s) in question) just meant more effort with little to show for it; in the latter case, they gambled that most people wouldn't notice anyway and the ones who did just shrug and let it go without it affecting their overall enjoyment. [See also: why Kate Beckett in ''Series/{{Castle}}'' ''Series/{{Castle|2009}}'' seems to have a magically reappearing/disappearing scar as well.]
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None


* In "Shadow of Two Gunmen, Vol. 1" the first flashback scene seems to indicate Josh is advocating for Hoynes to support cutting Social Security. Is that right? If so, why on earth would a liberal Democrat suggest that?

to:

* In "Shadow of Two Gunmen, Vol. 1" the first flashback scene seems to indicate Josh is advocating for Hoynes to support cutting Social Security. Is that right? If so, why on earth would a liberal Democrat suggest that?that?
** It's a product of the show's time and (to a certain extent) Sorkin's own ideology as a centrist Democrat. Back in the 90's and early aughts, it was pretty normal to see Democrats cast themselves as very serious people by calling for cuts to programs like Social Security and Medicare, though they often framed those cuts (and they were probably sincere in believing this) as "strengthening the programs for the future." This will come up again in a few seasons after Sorkin leaves, when Toby more-or-less singlehandedly engineers a Social Security reform plan that involves benefit cuts and raising the retirement age (which Josh initially opposes, interestingly, before coming around and supporting it, because season five). The Democratic Party has evolved a fair bit since those days.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None


** In "Shadow of Two Gunmen, Vol. 1" the first flashback scene seems to indicate Josh is advocating for Hoynes to support cutting Social Security. Is that right? If so, why on earth would a liberal Democrat suggest that?

to:

** * In "Shadow of Two Gunmen, Vol. 1" the first flashback scene seems to indicate Josh is advocating for Hoynes to support cutting Social Security. Is that right? If so, why on earth would a liberal Democrat suggest that?
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None


** Throughout the series we mostly see Leo either (a) at the White House, which is already full of Secret Service officials or (b) travelling with the President, who is surrounded by his own Secret Service detail. So it can be presumed that Leo's protection detail, should he have one, is further in the background. As for Leo suddenly getting a detail when he's running for vice president, presidential candidates have been legally required to have a Secret Service protection detail since Bobby Kennedy's assassination in 1969.

to:

** Throughout the series we mostly see Leo either (a) at the White House, which is already full of Secret Service officials or (b) travelling with the President, who is surrounded by his own Secret Service detail. So it can be presumed that Leo's protection detail, should he have one, is further in the background. As for Leo suddenly getting a detail when he's running for vice president, presidential candidates have been legally required to have a Secret Service protection detail since Bobby Kennedy's assassination in 1969.1969.
** In "Shadow of Two Gunmen, Vol. 1" the first flashback scene seems to indicate Josh is advocating for Hoynes to support cutting Social Security. Is that right? If so, why on earth would a liberal Democrat suggest that?
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None


** Leo could have waived his protection detail; while the Secret Service is often directed to protect high-ranking cabinet officers like Chief of Staff, only the president and the vice-president are legally ''required'' to be protected by the Secret Service, and Leo seems like the type not to want it if he doesn't have to have it. (Of course, the real answer is because having Leo be shown with regular Secret Service officials would increase the cast, and thus the budget needed to hire people.)

to:

** Leo could have waived his protection detail; while the Secret Service is often directed to protect high-ranking cabinet officers like Chief of Staff, only the president and the vice-president are legally ''required'' to be protected by the Secret Service, and Leo seems like the type not to want it if he doesn't have to have it. (Of course, the real answer is because having Leo be shown with regular Secret Service officials would increase the cast, and thus the budget needed to hire people.))
** Throughout the series we mostly see Leo either (a) at the White House, which is already full of Secret Service officials or (b) travelling with the President, who is surrounded by his own Secret Service detail. So it can be presumed that Leo's protection detail, should he have one, is further in the background. As for Leo suddenly getting a detail when he's running for vice president, presidential candidates have been legally required to have a Secret Service protection detail since Bobby Kennedy's assassination in 1969.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None


*** Since most of that takes place after the pilot episode, this is probably just a simply continuity error. Although those points aren't particularly conclusive either: it's worth noting that unlike Mallory Zoey is the First Daughter, who Sam would probably come into contact with more both during the campaign and in the White House than Mallory (Mallory's a grown woman with a job who presumably didn't and likely wouldn't have any reason to follow her father all the way around the country during the campaign, unlike Zoey who was probably a dependent at the time); Mallory and Zoey are likely to be family friends through their fathers so would naturally know each other better than the White House staffers would (I imagine that Mallory probably spent a few evenings babysitting Zoey at some point during their lives); C.J. appears to have some prior connection or awareness of Leo that Sam might not have had before he joined the campaign (Toby merely mentioning Leo asking for her is enough to tempt C.J. into joining the campaign, whereas Josh never mentions Leo's name to Sam when approaching him) which might explain how C.J. knows Mallory where Sam doesn't; and most of Sam's work in Communications would probably involve him dealing with the President and his family rather than Leo's. So while it might strain credibility a bit, it nevertheless is possible that Sam just might not have had occasion to cross paths with Mallory or learn that Leo had an adult daughter until fairly late in the day. I mean, I've worked with some people for years and still have no idea whether they have kids or families or whatever. Sometimes it just never comes up.

to:

*** Since most of that takes place after the pilot episode, this is probably just a simply continuity error. Although those points aren't particularly conclusive either: it's worth noting that unlike Mallory Zoey is the First Daughter, who Sam would probably come into contact with more both during the campaign and in the White House than Mallory (Mallory's a grown woman with a job who presumably didn't and likely wouldn't have any reason to follow her father all the way around the country during the campaign, unlike Zoey who was probably a dependent at the time); Mallory and Zoey are likely to be family friends through their fathers so would naturally know each other better than the White House staffers would (I imagine that Mallory probably spent a few evenings babysitting Zoey at some point during their lives); lives, and is likely a good personal friend of at least one of Bartlet's older daughters); C.J. appears to have some prior connection or awareness of Leo that Sam might not have had before he joined the campaign (Toby merely mentioning Leo asking for her is enough to tempt C.J. into joining the campaign, whereas Josh never mentions Leo's name to Sam when approaching him) which might explain how C.J. knows Mallory where Sam doesn't; and most of Sam's work in Communications would probably involve him dealing with the President and his family rather than Leo's. So while it might strain credibility a bit, it nevertheless is possible that Sam just might not have had occasion to cross paths with Mallory or learn that Leo had an adult daughter until fairly late in the day. I mean, I've worked with some people for years and still have no idea whether they have kids or families or whatever. Sometimes it just never comes up.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None

Added DiffLines:

** The fact that the Secretary of State handles US foreign relations is likely the key reason ''why'' we don't see him as much as others. Among the Secretary's duties are conducting international negotiations and treaty agreements, representing the United States and the President at international conferences and organisations, and generally being the boss of the US diplomatic corps. As such, he is likely to be travelling internationally for huge periods of time during Bartlet's administration.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None


* The secret service protection of the chief of staff is portrayed very inconsistently during the show. If memory serves we don't see Leo with a protection detail until he's running for vice president (at which point he hasn't been chief of staff for a year), but when CJ gets the job she has to have protection around the clock. Then she's hardly ever seen with any agents guarding her and Donna is able to spend the night in her spare bedroom, the same one in which the on-duty agent is supposed to be sleeping, but at other times she's got a full detail with her. How does that make any bit of sense?

to:

* The secret service protection of the chief of staff is portrayed very inconsistently during the show. If memory serves we don't see Leo with a protection detail until he's running for vice president (at which point he hasn't been chief of staff for a year), but when CJ gets the job she has to have protection around the clock. Then she's hardly ever seen with any agents guarding her and Donna is able to spend the night in her spare bedroom, the same one in which the on-duty agent is supposed to be sleeping, but at other times she's got a full detail with her. How does that make any bit of sense?sense?
** Leo could have waived his protection detail; while the Secret Service is often directed to protect high-ranking cabinet officers like Chief of Staff, only the president and the vice-president are legally ''required'' to be protected by the Secret Service, and Leo seems like the type not to want it if he doesn't have to have it. (Of course, the real answer is because having Leo be shown with regular Secret Service officials would increase the cast, and thus the budget needed to hire people.)
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None


** If I'm just not getting the context then could someone explain it to me? Because what it comes off as is Joe calling out Josh for...whatever about Josh's PTSD episode in ''Noel''. First of all, how the hell would Joe evening know about that? It would be confidential information; and second, what the hell business is it of Joe Quincy's that Josh has PTSD anyway?! His tone and the words he use just bother me. It comes across as out of nowhere victim blaming and it steps way over the line of things you say to anyone, much less to someone you hope will hire you, and all it serves to do is, (IMO) paint Joe as an ignorant {{Jerkass}} offering an unwarranted opinion.

to:

** If I'm just not getting the context then could someone explain it to me? Because what it comes off as is Joe calling out Josh for...whatever about Josh's PTSD episode in ''Noel''. First of all, how the hell would Joe evening even know about that? It would be confidential information; and second, what the hell business is it of Joe Quincy's that Josh has PTSD anyway?! His tone and the words he use just bother me. It comes across as out of nowhere victim blaming and it steps way over the line of things you say to anyone, much less to someone you hope will hire you, and all it serves to do is, (IMO) paint Joe as an ignorant {{Jerkass}} offering an unwarranted opinion.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None


** In his first couple of weeks as Deputy Communications Director, Will Bailey's office is used by junior members of his department as a makeshift bikeshed. But this was no amiable hazing, because after this they all quit, the day before the President was due to unveil his budget. That's right, this group of dedicated public servants quit the day before the President - their President - was about to unveil his budget, and needed their help to do so. They quit jobs working in the very heart of government, because they were annoyed that the job went to an external candidate.

to:

** In his first couple of weeks as Deputy Communications Director, Will Bailey's office is used by junior members of his department as a makeshift bikeshed.bike shed. But this was no amiable hazing, because after this they all quit, the day before the President was due to unveil his budget. That's right, this group of dedicated public servants quit the day before the President - their President - was about to unveil his budget, and needed their help to do so. They quit jobs working in the very heart of government, because they were annoyed that the job went to an external candidate.



* The first season [[HighClassCallGirl Laurie]] plot always bugged me because prostitution ''is'' [[http://weblinks.westlaw.com/toc/default.aspx?Abbr=dc-st-web&Action=ExpandTree&AP=N63B30510FD7111DB9E7AB1840ED39E65&ItemKey=N63B30510FD7111DB9E7AB1840ED39E65&RP=%2Ftoc%2Fdefault%2Ewl&Service=TOC&RS=WEBL11.10&VR=2.0&SPa=dcc-1000&pbc=DA010192&fragment#N63B30510FD7111DB9E7AB1840ED39E65 in fact illegal in Washington, D.C.]] They continually treat Laurie like a huge victim in the entire affair when she's the one knowingly and repeatedly breaking the law with the non-judgemental acknowledgement of everyone around her. Now, it may be reasonable to assume that the staff and even the local law enforcement choose not to enforce that law against the women of the trade...but when the President finally gets wind of it: he goes out of his way to apologize (again) for the dreadful inconvenience the press has caused her, which is of course entirely Sam's fault; he pledges to throw the weight of the Attorney General's office behind get ting her admitted to the bar after passing her exam, to avoid any complications caused by this unfortunate past, of which she is the victim; and he offers her his personal congratulations while brimming with pride at the obstacles this young woman has overcome. I'm not saying she should've been vilified, or that it wasn't reasonable for Sam to see her as a person rather than a hooker, but...really?

to:

* The first season [[HighClassCallGirl Laurie]] plot always bugged me because prostitution ''is'' [[http://weblinks.westlaw.com/toc/default.aspx?Abbr=dc-st-web&Action=ExpandTree&AP=N63B30510FD7111DB9E7AB1840ED39E65&ItemKey=N63B30510FD7111DB9E7AB1840ED39E65&RP=%2Ftoc%2Fdefault%2Ewl&Service=TOC&RS=WEBL11.10&VR=2.0&SPa=dcc-1000&pbc=DA010192&fragment#N63B30510FD7111DB9E7AB1840ED39E65 in fact illegal in Washington, D.C.]] They continually treat Laurie like a huge victim in the entire affair when she's the one knowingly and repeatedly breaking the law with the non-judgemental non-judgmental acknowledgement of everyone around her. Now, it may be reasonable to assume that the staff and even the local law enforcement choose not to enforce that law against the women of the trade...but when the President finally gets wind of it: he goes out of his way to apologize (again) for the dreadful inconvenience the press has caused her, which is of course entirely Sam's fault; he pledges to throw the weight of the Attorney General's office behind get ting her admitted to the bar after passing her exam, to avoid any complications caused by this unfortunate past, of which she is the victim; and he offers her his personal congratulations while brimming with pride at the obstacles this young woman has overcome. I'm not saying she should've been vilified, or that it wasn't reasonable for Sam to see her as a person rather than a hooker, but...really?



*** You never get a good look at Josh shirtless. The first thing he does when he wakes up is put his undershirt back on, so you never see his scar. Read into it what you want about Josh's psyche, the "real" reason is probably so the makeup crew didn't have to apply the scar to Bradley Witford's chest.

to:

*** You never get a good look at Josh shirtless. The first thing he does when he wakes up is put his undershirt back on, so you never see his scar. Read into it what you want about Josh's psyche, the "real" reason is probably so the makeup crew didn't have to apply the scar to Bradley Witford's Whitford's chest.



* The secret service protection of the chief of staff is portrayed very inconsistently during the show. If memory serves we don't see Leo with a protection detail until he's running for vice president (at which point he hasn't been chief of staff for a year), but when CJ gets the job she has to have protection around the clock. Then she's hardly ever seen with any agents guarding her and Donna is able to spend the nigth in her spare bedorom, the same one in which the on-duty agent is supposed to be sleeping, but at other times she's got a full detail with her. How does that make any bit of sense?

to:

* The secret service protection of the chief of staff is portrayed very inconsistently during the show. If memory serves we don't see Leo with a protection detail until he's running for vice president (at which point he hasn't been chief of staff for a year), but when CJ gets the job she has to have protection around the clock. Then she's hardly ever seen with any agents guarding her and Donna is able to spend the nigth night in her spare bedorom, bedroom, the same one in which the on-duty agent is supposed to be sleeping, but at other times she's got a full detail with her. How does that make any bit of sense?
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None


**** He does appear shirtless a couple of times in the season seven election episode, Bradley Whitford commented on the rewatch podcast about how the scar is something they dropped the ball on.



* Fandom headscratcher--what does it mean when a ''Series/TheWestWing'' fanfiction is labeled "ESF"?

to:

* Fandom headscratcher--what does it mean when a ''Series/TheWestWing'' fanfiction is labeled "ESF"?"ESF"?
* The secret service protection of the chief of staff is portrayed very inconsistently during the show. If memory serves we don't see Leo with a protection detail until he's running for vice president (at which point he hasn't been chief of staff for a year), but when CJ gets the job she has to have protection around the clock. Then she's hardly ever seen with any agents guarding her and Donna is able to spend the nigth in her spare bedorom, the same one in which the on-duty agent is supposed to be sleeping, but at other times she's got a full detail with her. How does that make any bit of sense?
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None

Added DiffLines:

** This is basic RuleOfDrama; they fudged the technical details to make the potential threat to the astronauts, and thus the consequences for the characters in how they chose to address it, more significant. Since the show isn't primarily a science fiction show or concerned with the technical or practical realities of space travel, they gambled that the audience wouldn't worry too much about this sort of thing.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None


* Fandom headscratcher--what does it mean when a ''Series/WestWing'' fanfiction is labeled "ESF"?

to:

* Fandom headscratcher--what does it mean when a ''Series/WestWing'' ''Series/TheWestWing'' fanfiction is labeled "ESF"?
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None


** It was the 1990s when Gail was introduced, and if memory serves people were a bit less concerned about this sort of thing when it came to goldfish back then. Plus, these people work at the White House -- they generally have other things to think about than proper goldfish care.

to:

** It was the 1990s when Gail was introduced, and if memory serves people were a bit less concerned about this sort of thing when it came to goldfish back then. Plus, these people work at the White House -- they generally have other things to think about than proper goldfish care.care.
* Fandom headscratcher--what does it mean when a ''Series/WestWing'' fanfiction is labeled "ESF"?
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None


** ''Is'' it that rare and unusual a phrase? This troper recalls hearing and using it plenty of times before being exposed to it on the show. We might be dealing with cultural-language differences here.

to:

** ''Is'' it that rare and unusual a phrase? This troper recalls hearing and using it plenty of times before being exposed to it on the show. We might be dealing with cultural-language cultural/regional language differences here.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None

Added DiffLines:

** Given that they were described as "''a'' NASA administrator", this is probably just a flub and the writers were intending that the characters in question be considered Deputy/Associate Administrators.


Added DiffLines:

** ''Is'' it that rare and unusual a phrase? This troper recalls hearing and using it plenty of times before being exposed to it on the show. We might be dealing with cultural-language differences here.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None

Added DiffLines:

*** Or that they were simply replaced offscreen. Let's face it, how often did we see other speechwriters than Toby and Sam around the place? How many of the audience would even recognize the original speechwriting staff? They were hardly familiar faces.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None

Added DiffLines:

** Note also that Lionel does not actually start yelling until he is inside the office, or at least inside the office's antechamber. I imagine that he was fairly controlled (if seething) while walking around the corridors, and the mere fact that he is carrying a cricket bat is no reason for the Secret Service to open fire on him any more than if he was carrying, say, a baseball bat or a golf club.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None

Added DiffLines:

** Plus... RuleOfFunny, guys. It's still a TV show, we can give them some leeway for a comedic moment.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None


** It was the 1990s when Gail was introduced, and if memory serves people were a bit less concerned about this sort of thing when it came to goldfish. Plus, these people work at the White House -- they generally have other things to think about than proper goldfish care.

to:

** It was the 1990s when Gail was introduced, and if memory serves people were a bit less concerned about this sort of thing when it came to goldfish.goldfish back then. Plus, these people work at the White House -- they generally have other things to think about than proper goldfish care.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None


* Gail, [=CJ=]'s goldfish: You don't have to be a PETA crazy to understand that [[http://www.petguide.com/blog/fish/cute-but-deadly-the-truth-about-fish-bowls/ it's extremely bad for their health to keep goldfish in a bowl]]. Gail could live to be ''forty'' if properly cared for. People being what they are on this show, someone (Danny?) will have told [=CJ=] by now (maybe someone clued him in if he went back to the pet shop). Therefore, in or near her office, there is a large well-appointed aquarium where Gail spends most of her time, probably with other fish. She is only in the bowl on [=CJ=]'s desk during office hours. (She will get too big for the bowl eventually, so some kind of aquarium will be needed anyhow.)

to:

* Gail, [=CJ=]'s goldfish: You don't have to be a PETA crazy to understand that [[http://www.petguide.com/blog/fish/cute-but-deadly-the-truth-about-fish-bowls/ it's extremely bad for their health to keep goldfish in a bowl]]. Gail could live to be ''forty'' if properly cared for. People being what they are on this show, someone (Danny?) will have told [=CJ=] by now (maybe someone clued him in if he went back to the pet shop). Therefore, in or near her office, there is a large well-appointed aquarium where Gail spends most of her time, probably with other fish. She is only in the bowl on [=CJ=]'s desk during office hours. (She will get too big for the bowl eventually, so some kind of aquarium will be needed anyhow.))
** It was the 1990s when Gail was introduced, and if memory serves people were a bit less concerned about this sort of thing when it came to goldfish. Plus, these people work at the White House -- they generally have other things to think about than proper goldfish care.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None


** The bar is in Georgetown, a college town. There are plenty of bars in college towns that allow 18-20 year olds in but don't serve them alcohol. The headscratcher in this case is that they specifically show her ordering a drink, which would still be illegal, whether it was for her or not.

to:

** The bar is in Georgetown, a college town. There are plenty of bars in college towns that allow 18-20 year olds in but don't serve them alcohol. The headscratcher in this case is that they specifically show her ordering a drink, which would still be illegal, whether it was for her or not.not.
* Gail, [=CJ=]'s goldfish: You don't have to be a PETA crazy to understand that [[http://www.petguide.com/blog/fish/cute-but-deadly-the-truth-about-fish-bowls/ it's extremely bad for their health to keep goldfish in a bowl]]. Gail could live to be ''forty'' if properly cared for. People being what they are on this show, someone (Danny?) will have told [=CJ=] by now (maybe someone clued him in if he went back to the pet shop). Therefore, in or near her office, there is a large well-appointed aquarium where Gail spends most of her time, probably with other fish. She is only in the bowl on [=CJ=]'s desk during office hours. (She will get too big for the bowl eventually, so some kind of aquarium will be needed anyhow.)
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None

Added DiffLines:

***You never get a good look at Josh shirtless. The first thing he does when he wakes up is put his undershirt back on, so you never see his scar. Read into it what you want about Josh's psyche, the "real" reason is probably so the makeup crew didn't have to apply the scar to Bradley Witford's chest.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None


*** Since most of that takes place after the pilot episode, this is probably just a simply continuity error. Although it's worth noting that unlike Mallory Zoey is the First Daughter, who Sam would probably come into contact with more both during the campaign and in the White House than Mallory (Mallory's a grown woman with a job who presumably didn't follow her father all the way around the country during the campaign, unlike Zoey who was probably a dependent at the time), Mallory and Zoey are likely to be family friends through their fathers so would naturally know each other better than the White House staffers would, C.J. appears to have some prior connection or awareness of Leo that Sam might not have (Toby merely mentioning Leo asking for her is enough to tempt C.J. into joining the campaign, whereas Josh never mentions Leo's name to Sam when approaching him) which might explain how C.J. knows Mallory, and most of Sam's work in Communications would probably involve him dealing with the President and his family rather than Leo's. So while it might strain credibility a bit, it nevertheless is possible that Sam just might not have had occasion to cross paths with Mallory or learn that Leo had an adult daughter until fairly late in the day. I mean, I've worked with some people for years and still have no idea whether they have kids or families or whatever. Sometimes it just never comes up.

to:

*** Since most of that takes place after the pilot episode, this is probably just a simply continuity error. Although those points aren't particularly conclusive either: it's worth noting that unlike Mallory Zoey is the First Daughter, who Sam would probably come into contact with more both during the campaign and in the White House than Mallory (Mallory's a grown woman with a job who presumably didn't and likely wouldn't have any reason to follow her father all the way around the country during the campaign, unlike Zoey who was probably a dependent at the time), time); Mallory and Zoey are likely to be family friends through their fathers so would naturally know each other better than the White House staffers would, would (I imagine that Mallory probably spent a few evenings babysitting Zoey at some point during their lives); C.J. appears to have some prior connection or awareness of Leo that Sam might not have had before he joined the campaign (Toby merely mentioning Leo asking for her is enough to tempt C.J. into joining the campaign, whereas Josh never mentions Leo's name to Sam when approaching him) which might explain how C.J. knows Mallory, Mallory where Sam doesn't; and most of Sam's work in Communications would probably involve him dealing with the President and his family rather than Leo's. So while it might strain credibility a bit, it nevertheless is possible that Sam just might not have had occasion to cross paths with Mallory or learn that Leo had an adult daughter until fairly late in the day. I mean, I've worked with some people for years and still have no idea whether they have kids or families or whatever. Sometimes it just never comes up.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None

Added DiffLines:

*** Since most of that takes place after the pilot episode, this is probably just a simply continuity error. Although it's worth noting that unlike Mallory Zoey is the First Daughter, who Sam would probably come into contact with more both during the campaign and in the White House than Mallory (Mallory's a grown woman with a job who presumably didn't follow her father all the way around the country during the campaign, unlike Zoey who was probably a dependent at the time), Mallory and Zoey are likely to be family friends through their fathers so would naturally know each other better than the White House staffers would, C.J. appears to have some prior connection or awareness of Leo that Sam might not have (Toby merely mentioning Leo asking for her is enough to tempt C.J. into joining the campaign, whereas Josh never mentions Leo's name to Sam when approaching him) which might explain how C.J. knows Mallory, and most of Sam's work in Communications would probably involve him dealing with the President and his family rather than Leo's. So while it might strain credibility a bit, it nevertheless is possible that Sam just might not have had occasion to cross paths with Mallory or learn that Leo had an adult daughter until fairly late in the day. I mean, I've worked with some people for years and still have no idea whether they have kids or families or whatever. Sometimes it just never comes up.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None

Added DiffLines:

***Except that we know that, in advance of the series, that Mallory and Zoey know each other well (evidenced by their relationship as presented, such as the visit to the bar with Charlie) and that they both spent time with CJ, and Sam is very familiar with Zoey also: all prior to the first series’ events. It is heavily implied that they spent a lot of time together during the campaign, so it would be odd for Sam to be so completely unaware of Mallory’s basic existence given his relationships with people who know her reasonably well. I have a sketchy recognition of my colleagues family set-up, even if I don’t know specifics, and with Sam in Communications it seems unlikely given the level of media attention they would likely have had during the campaign that he never ONCE noticed an adult daughter in Leo’s profile.

Added: 513

Changed: 9

Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None


** It is perhaps worth noting that when Lionel is ranting and raving and waving his cricket bat threateningly, he is in fact heading towards ''Leo's'' office, not the President, which is where most of the ranting and ensuing conversation takes place. When he finally enters the Oval Office he is, if not exactly ''calm'', then hardly acting in a threatening or overtly aggressive manner. Also worth noting that Tribbey at no point ever threatens the President (he says "I will kill ''people'' today, Leo!" and never refers to the President in a violent or threatening manner). Which, granted, doesn't mean the issue goes away, but he's hardly acting like a complete maniac who needs to be taken down right this second around the President.

to:

** It is perhaps worth noting that when Lionel is ranting and raving and waving his cricket bat threateningly, he is in fact heading towards ''Leo's'' office, not the President, which is where most of the ranting and ensuing conversation takes place. When he finally enters the Oval Office he is, if not exactly ''calm'', then hardly acting in a threatening or overtly aggressive manner. Also worth noting that Tribbey at no point ever threatens the President directly (he says "I will kill ''people'' today, Leo!" and never refers to the President in a violent or threatening manner). Which, granted, doesn't mean the issue goes away, but he's hardly acting like a complete maniac who needs to be taken down right this second around the President.
** Also, I suspect that the White House is a place that sees its fair share of yelling, histrionics and tantrums from the people who work there, due to being a stressful working environment, and the Secret Service no doubt gives a bit of leeway with this in mind. They’re not gonna shoot-to-kill the White House Counsel just because he’s storming the corridors yelling to whoever will listen about whatever dumb thing the West Wing staff has done this time that has caused him more stress than he needs right now.

Top