Democratic National Committee
Description
Affiliated Characters
Event Involvements
Events with structured involvement data
The Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee (DCCC) is the implied actor Sam references when complaining about the party's fundraising message and resource allocation; its perceived inadequacy exacerbates staff worries about down-ballot races in light of reduced debate visibility.
Referenced via Sam's critique and as the mechanism for allocating campaign resources.
Responsible for coordinating House campaign resources; its choices directly affect vulnerable districts and are subject to White House scrutiny.
Perceived failures or misallocations by the DCCC increase pressure on White House staff to compensate and politicize policy choices.
Tension between national message crafting and targeted resource deployment for competitive districts.
The Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee (D-Triple-C) is invoked as the party arm responsible for defending vulnerable House seats; Sam criticizes its fundraising language and prioritization in light of weak nominees.
Referenced through Sam's critique of fundraising messaging and resource allocation decisions.
Acts as the party's frontline resource allocator for House races, but is dependent on national party support and donor responses.
Its perceived underperformance widens the gap between White House expectations and ground-level realities; resource misalignment raises doubts about coordinated strategy.
Tension between aspirational messaging ('We're taking back the House') and the practical challenge of finding qualified, viable candidates.
The Democratic Party is the partisan frame for the selection: Rooker is identified as a Democrat whose conservative-satisfying record is meant to placate certain institutional gatekeepers while risking intra-party friction.
Referenced indirectly via staff discussion as the partisan context within which nominations are judged and electoral consequences measured.
The party exerts normative pressure on the administration via expectations from different wings (left vs. pragmatic centrists) but cannot unilaterally veto a presidential pick.
The party's competing priorities (electability vs. ideological purity) are mirrored in staff arguments, emphasizing the nominee's role as a litmus test for internal cohesion.
Implicit factional tension between pragmatic centrists and the party's progressive wing; this division drives the scene's debate.
The Democratic Party is the broader institutional frame within which the nomination occurs: the President, as party leader, balances coalition interests by selecting a nominee palatable to conservatives while risking internal party friction.
Implicit through the President's action and staff calculations — the party's interests are present in discussions about coalition management and base reaction.
Exerts soft authority over staffing choices by virtue of electoral necessity; must balance centrist appeal with progressive loyalty.
Highlights the party-level trade-offs between electability and ideological purity — selecting a centrist or conservative-minded nominee can shore up institutional functioning at the cost of internal dissent.
Reflects intra-party negotiation: senior staff must anticipate and manage leftist pushback while pursuing decisions seen as strategically useful by the party leadership.
The Democratic Party is the implicit institutional backdrop: its interest in preserving seats and winning the presidency informs the cold calculus Joey advances. The party's need to allocate limited resources underlies the conversation, even if it isn't named as an active speaker.
Represented indirectly through campaign strategists' allocation choices and references to election math rather than through a formal spokesman.
The party's electoral imperatives exert top-down pressure on staff decisions; campaign strategists defer to party-level goals and winnability metrics.
The party's pragmatic priorities push staff toward decisions that privilege general election viability over personal or symbolic loyalties, revealing institutional willingness to sacrifice local or legacy attachments.
Tension between analytics-driven strategists and staffers who prioritize presidential dignity and symbolic holdings; potential friction between campaign operatives and White House advisors about messaging and messenger choice.
The Democratic Party is present implicitly as the primary ballot column at issue—the party label anchors voters' loyalty and confusion when multiple party lines list the same candidate.
Through the physical presence of its candidate's name on the ballot and voters' references.
Symbolically authoritative as the institutional banner under which votes should be cast; its presence complicates voter choices when cross-listed.
Highlights how ballot structures and party listings can affect turnout validity and election administration.
The Democratic Party appears indirectly via its candidate's presence on multiple ballot columns; its placement on the ballot is the structural reason voters are confused and the immediate cause of the supposed crisis.
Through the candidate's name appearing on the ballot (institutional presence rather than physical representation in the scene).
Institutional — its ballot placement shapes voter behavior and generates procedural complexity; it exerts structural influence rather than direct agency in the precinct.
Highlights how party fragmentation or multiple ballot lines can unintentionally confuse voters and create on-the-ground administrative headaches.
The Democratic Party is an implied stakeholder in the lobby's conversations (vote-swapping, satellite allocation) — its electoral interests frame Donna's ballot panic and Will Bailey's plea for drive-time exposure.
Through staff actions and campaign communications (requests for satellite time; tactical vote-fixing attempts by staff).
Diffuse influence — aligned staff and campaigns seek party resources and favorable optics; party infrastructure is both support and constraint.
Provides the political imperative that drives staff to improvise (Donna's swap, satellite requests) and reveals the pressure parties place on executive operations during tight races.
Tension between broad party strategy and ad-hoc staff maneuvers; limited resources create competition among campaigns.
The Democratic Party functions as the institutional backdrop — its presumed strength in the District and its stakes in swing states inform Donna's argument and Sam's tactical calculations about where to commit resources.
Represented indirectly through campaign staff actions, ballot rhetoric, and the Bartlet button as partisan symbol.
The Party is an organizing frame that demands both loyalty from operatives and pragmatic allocation of scarce field resources.
Reveals how party-level priorities turn private mistakes into operational problems and justify tactical compromises by staffers.
Tension between symbolic loyalty (showing the button) and pragmatic risk management (removing it) is implied.
The Democratic Party functions as the ideological and organizational context for Donna and Sam's actions — referenced as the umbrella under which Bartlet runs and the institutional framework that rewards loyalty and punishes visible mistakes.
Manifested through staff behavior and rhetorical appeals to party success (references to Bartlet's expected win).
Exerts normative pressure on staff to demonstrate loyalty and maintain positive optics; individual staffers feel accountable to the party's broader fortunes.
The party's presence turns personal errors into political liabilities and motivates rapid triage; it reveals how party imperatives shape private choices.
Implicit tension between central campaign messaging/optics and decentralized, improvised staff efforts at individual polling sites.
The Democratic Party is the institutional stake behind Bartlet's presence on the board; its fortunes are implicitly measured by the late exit polls and staff reactions, and the party's success depends on reading and protecting urban and labor turnout.
Manifested through the candidate's tally on the results board and the staff's operational focus.
Exerts organizational urgency through campaign staff who act to defend and amplify emerging advantages; vulnerable to late swings.
Highlights the party's dependence on coordinated turnout operations and the interconnectedness of national and local races.
Implicit pressure on campaign operatives to interpret and act on fluid data while managing interpersonal strains among senior staff.
The Democratic Party is present implicitly via the 'D' labels next to Bartlet and Wilde on the results board; it frames the staff's objectives and provides institutional stakes for the interpretations of returns and the urgency of turnout analysis.
Through scoreboard labeling, campaign staff actions, and the presence of incumbent vote totals that the team reads aloud.
Institutional authority and incumbency confer agenda-setting power in the room; the party's fate is debated indirectly through data rather than direct representation.
The party's numeric representation sharpens staff decision-making and justifies emotional investments; its presence compresses personal anxieties into professional imperatives.
Tension between message discipline and emotional needs of staff; competing priorities between national headline races and local House contests.
The Democratic Party is the implicit beneficiary of the night's returns: Bartlet's candidacy is presented as the party's success and his rhetoric seeks to convert the win into a broader mandate for Democratic governance.
Manifested through the candidate (Bartlet), party identifiers next to his name, and the celebratory crowd's partisan support.
Exercising symbolic authority through an electoral victory while dependent on public perception and media confirmation.
Reinforces party legitimacy and facilitates agenda-setting for the next term; the night's optics reduce opposition leverage.
Not explicit in scene; implied need to manage optics and reassure concerned staff about the President's condition.
The Democratic Party is implicated in tactical choices—Josh claims the DNC effectively gave up on the 47th a week earlier—affecting resource allocation and contributing to low mobilization in that district, which in turn shapes the night's emergency response.
Implied through staff commentary about party resource decisions rather than an onstage representative.
The party is portrayed as both a resource-provider and a political actor whose priorities (or lack thereof) limit local campaign capacity.
The party's allocation choices directly influence local turnout and the ability to defend razor‑thin seats, reflecting tensions between national and local campaign priorities.
Implied tension between national prioritization and local needs; possible resource triage decisions that deprioritize marginal districts.
The Democratic Party (via the DNC's behavior, as cited by Josh) is implicated for deprioritizing CA‑47—'gave up on it a week ago'—and therefore contributing to the precarious margin; the party's resource choices and local attention deficits are narrated as causal in the tight result.
Represented indirectly through Josh's account of DNC decisions and resource withdrawal.
Institutional decision‑making (national party) exerts downstream influence on local field outcomes; its absence weakens grassroots efforts.
Illustrates how national party triage decisions can imperil marginal local contests and complicate governance despite headline wins.
Implied tension between national prioritization and local needs; possible triage/abandonment choices evident.
The Democratic Party is the implicit beneficiary of the Lazarus angle — Horton Wilde's name on the ballot and the broader debate-driven swing that Martin cites are presented as elements favorable to Democrats in tight contests.
Manifested through the presence of the dead candidate's ballot and the pundits' reference to Democratic competitiveness.
Seen as gaining narrative momentum from national performances, though the party's local organizational decisions (e.g., resource allocation) are implicitly questioned.
A narrative that credits debates for Democratic success strengthens the party’s argument for national messaging and candidate presentation as policy levers.
Hints of resource withdrawal in specific districts (e.g., pulling out early) create tension between national priorities and local contingencies (implied).
The Democratic Party is implicated by the presence of Horton Wilde on the ballot and the idea that a Democratic name could flip a seat; the broadcast functions as a barometer for party fortunes and the possibility of unexpected gains.
Manifested through the candidate label and the narrative of an improbable Democratic edge in Orange County.
On the defensive/opportunistic — historically weaker in the district but potentially gaining leverage from unusual circumstances.
The event spotlights gaps in party resource allocation and how small shifts can affect broader balance of power.
Tension between national narrative opportunities and local resource constraints (implied by how the race was previously deprioritized).
The Democratic Party is the wider institutional actor whose interests are implicated: the unexpected hold in a traditionally Republican district increases stakes, drawing national attention and pressuring leaders to coordinate candidate selection and messaging.
Implied through pundit analysis, party strategists' expected involvement, and references to consolidating seats rather than through a single spokesman in the scene.
The party holds strategic weight and resources but must balance grassroots momentum with national optics and internal processes.
This moment exposes how local surprises become national priorities for a party calculating control of the House and managing optics around candidate recruitment.
Likely debates about whether to run a local surrogate, draft a party figure, or accept offers from national aides; tension between quick reaction and due diligence.
The Democratic Party is the background institutional stakeholder whose interests are implied: protecting the seat, exploiting an upset, and managing candidate selection and exposure. The party's broader strategic calculus frames why Sam's offhand promise acquires immediate national consequence.
Implicitly through party strategists' expectations and the concern voiced by White House political staff; not represented by a single spokesman in the scene but present as pressure.
The Party is an influential arbiter that can marshal resources and expectations; it exerts pressure on individuals (like Sam) while also being vulnerable to missteps by its surrogates.
The Party's expectations convert a private promise into a public obligation, illustrating how individual gestures become entangled with party machinery and electoral imperatives.
Potential friction between local campaign autonomy and national party strategic priorities; a need to quickly align stakeholders on candidate choices and messaging.
The Democratic Party functions as background context: the unexpected strength in the traditionally Republican 47th fuels the media narrative and motivates staff concern about capitalizing or defending against political consequences.
Manifested indirectly through commentators and the implications of the election result rather than a direct spokesman in the scene.
As the political institution whose fortunes are affected, it is both beneficiary and stakeholder in decisions about endorsements and candidate recruitment.
The party's potential gains create pressure on the White House to manage endorsements carefully, reflecting broader electoral strategy concerns.
Tension between opportunistic expansion and resource/prioritization constraints likely informs behind-the-scenes calculus.
The Democratic Party is invoked as the broader political context: pundit commentary about Democrats' historical weakness in the 47th magnifies the significance of the upset and the potential strategic implications of a high-profile candidate like Sam entering the race.
Indirectly through pundit analysis and the framing of electoral significance on television.
The party stands to gain or lose from candidate decisions; its perceived fortunes amplify pressure on individual actors and the White House to respond strategically.
The party's perceived prospects shift media attention and create expectations that push White House actors toward decisions they might otherwise avoid.
Potential tension between national strategic interests and local campaign realities; pressure to act quickly on surprise opportunities.
The Democratic Party is the institutional backdrop: its candidate (Horton Wilde) and local operations created the opening for a posthumous win and the subsequent scramble to defend a contested seat. The party's interests inform the urgency around an endorsement, staffing decisions, and messaging control in the first hours after returns.
Manifested implicitly through staff activity and the need for rapid outreach to local operatives and potential surrogates; represented through the President's and aides' concern for party optics.
The party exerts pressure on individual actors to protect a winnable seat while also constrained by local organizational failures and limited immediate control—creating a top-down expectation but bottom-up fragility.
Reveals tensions between national party expectations and local campaign fragility; exposes how past strategic decisions (e.g., resource allocation) can produce late-night crises.
Implied internal strain: debate over resource allocation, chain-of-command urgency, and potential disagreement about candidate selection and messaging strategy.
The Democratic Party looms as the background actor whose institutional interests shape the urgency: holding the 47th, managing candidate selection, and controlling public messaging. Though not physically present, its expectations and potential pressure inform Sam's and the White House's decisions about endorsement and recruitment.
Implicitly through staff behavior and the immediate expectation that the White House will help manage candidate selection and messaging; represented by the actions of aides and Sam's reference to party obligations.
The Party exerts persuasive and organizational pressure on individual actors (Sam, President) while relying on the White House's moral authority and public signals to stabilize local races.
The incident exposes how ad-hoc personal commitments can force centralized party machinery into quick, reputation-sensitive action; it tests the party's rapid-response capacity in candidate recruitment.
Implied tension between local campaign autonomy and national party coordination; a need for rapid decision-making and possible debate over whether to draft a high-profile surrogate versus promoting a local candidate.
The Democratic National Committee functions as a background institutional force: reporters invoke 'the Party's endorsing you' as evidence of legitimacy and pressure, shaping expectations about succession and resource commitments.
Implied through reporter questions and the campaign's need to demonstrate readiness to match party endorsement.
The DNC exerts soft power by endorsing candidates and setting expectations; local actors must respond to its signaling to secure resources and legitimacy.
The DNC's endorsement forces local actors to present an organized front, accelerating staffing decisions and influencing who takes responsibility.
Not depicted directly, but implied pressure from national party expectations which constrain local decision-making.
The Democratic National Committee is an implied pressure in the background: Will's earlier fight to prove districts matter and the need to show the DNC that resources are wisely used inform his decision to consolidate and step back.
Implicit institutional pressure and standards — no direct spokesman in scene, but referenced through Will's justification.
The DNC functions as a supervisory influence that Will wants to satisfy; it constrains local autonomy while offering legitimacy if the campaign shows discipline.
This moment shows how national party expectations shape on-the-ground decisions, forcing pragmatic consolidations and personnel shifts.
Tension between local advocates (Will) and national expectations — Will must demonstrate utility to the DNC while honoring local commitments.
The Democratic National Committee is the implied source of the state-convention list Josh requests. It functions as an organizational node that schedules speaking slots and shapes how the administration deploys the Vice President for political advantage; its lists are material inputs to the White House's tactical planning.
Through the existence of their compiled lists (institutional output) rather than a spoken representative in the scene.
Holds practical scheduling authority over party events; the White House coordinates with it but does not directly control its calendar.
Shows party infrastructure shaping executive branch behavior, forcing staff to translate party schedules into White House logistics and political calculations.
Not depicted in-scene; implicit coordination and gatekeeping between party and White House.
The Democratic National Committee (DCCC) is invoked as scheduling the Brentwood fundraiser, pushing campaign priorities into the President's calendar and creating political pressure that competes with crisis response.
Through scheduling decisions communicated to White House staff (as referenced).
Exerts political/financial influence over candidates and the administration's domestic priorities; constrained by larger moral crisis.
Makes clear how party machinery and fundraising needs can pull executive attention away from humanitarian crises, revealing tension between politics and policy.
Balancing national party priorities and local campaign needs (implied).
The Democratic National Committee (D-triple-C) is referenced as scheduling a Brentwood event that competes for the President's time, representing domestic campaign pressures and donor priorities that Bartlet temporarily deprioritizes.
Mentioned indirectly through Leo's scheduling complaint about a fundraising event.
A party organization applying pressure to serve electoral needs, standing in tension with White House foreign policy imperatives.
Embodies the pull of partisan politics on presidential time and attention.
Tension between national party priorities and White House operational priorities.
The Democratic National Committee (DCCC) is referenced as putting an event in Brentwood, representing domestic party pressure and donor choreography that competes with urgent foreign policy demands.
Via Leo's report of a DCCC/party event scheduling decision that shaped the President's itinerary.
Exerts political pressure on the White House to attend fundraising and campaign events; subordinate to national security but influential for electoral strategy.
Demonstrates the constant tug-of-war between electoral machinery and governance, compressing staff time and focus.
Potential tension between national party interests and local campaign strategy; top-down scheduling choices.
The Democratic National Committee (national committee) is the implied source of Scott Holcomb's placement and the funding behind him; its choices constrain Sam's options and explain why he defers to Holcomb despite local misgivings.
Operates invisibly through staffing decisions and funding channels rather than a physical presence; its will is represented by Scott Holcomb and the phrase 'where money's coming from.'
Holds financial and organizational leverage over the campaign, creating an asymmetry between local preferences and national strategy.
Makes local autonomy contingent on national approval and resources, revealing tension between grassroots realities and centralized party strategy.
Potential tension between national operatives favoring standardized tactics and local operatives advocating a ground-based approach.
The Democratic National Committee is the implied power behind Scott Holcomb's placement and funding decisions; it looms as the organization whose resources and strategic choices complicate the White House's desire to control optics.
Implicitly represented through staffing decisions and financing tied to Holcomb's role on the campaign.
Holds resource power over the campaign (money and staffing) while being influenced by White House priorities—an interdependent but tension-filled relationship.
Its involvement highlights the tension between national party control and local campaign realities, forcing difficult trade-offs between money and message control.
Tension between national strategy and local tailoring; the DNC's choices can override candidate preferences and create friction with White House aides.
The Democratic National Committee is the off-stage power broker invoked by Sam: its funding and appointment of Scott Holcomb shape campaign choices and constrain Sam's ability to unilaterally change course.
Manifested through Sam's mention of 'who the national committee wants' and the implied flow of money and authority.
Exercises institutional leverage over the campaign through funding and managerial appointments, creating tension with local staff and White House advisers.
Creates a structural constraint where local judgment and national strategy collide, producing loyalty dilemmas for the candidate.
Potential tension between local campaign needs and national strategic priorities; committee prioritizes resource allocation decisions over local nuance.
The DNC is a background institutional pressure referenced in the group's campaign conversation—its preference for manager Holcomb colors staff frustration and informs why C.J. and Toby are anxious about taking over Sam's race. The organization's preferences shape internal staffing tensions even as a physical confrontation unfolds.
Indirectly represented through staff complaints and references to its candidate preference (Holcomb) rather than through an on-site official.
Exerts top-down influence over campaign management decisions; staff feel constrained by DNC preference despite local realities.
The DNC's interventionist posture magnifies staff frustration and limits their tactical freedom; it also increases the stakes of any public incident because national actors are watching.
Tension between local staff autonomy and national committee control; implicit chain-of-command friction over campaign stewardship.
The DNC is invoked as the external power preferring Holcomb to run Sam's campaign; it functions as a bureaucratic force whose choices shape the debate over who should manage the local race.
Via references to its staffing preference and the perceived authority it exerts over candidate management.
Exerts top‑down influence over campaign staffing choices, sometimes clashing with White House staff who prefer direct involvement.
Its preference shapes how White House aides perceive options and increases friction between national party orthodoxy and White House loyalty.
Tension between centralized party strategy and local campaign needs; potential friction with White House aides over operational control.
The Democratic National Committee is the off-stage institutional actor that shapes the political argument: Toby invokes the DNC's commitment to Holcomb as the binding constraint preventing a White House takeover of Sam's campaign. The DNC's preferences and procedures are central to the staff's calculus.
Represented indirectly through Toby and C.J.'s dialogue and the invocation of DNC preferences rather than a direct spokesman.
Exerts authority over campaign staffing decisions; effectively blocks White House unilateral action by enforcing party protocol and candidate endorsements.
Demonstrates the friction between executive staff loyalty and party bureaucracy; their involvement shows how institutional rules can trump ad hoc loyalty even when allies are at risk.
Implicit tension between national party prerogatives and the White House's desire to protect an ally; chain-of-command and 'higher authorities' are referenced as the decisive actors.
The DNC is the implied institutional stakeholder whose approval and relationships Scott fears burning; its preferences and resource leverage frame local campaign strategy and inform Bartlet's risk calculations.
By implied pressure and institutional memory invoked by Scott and staff concerns about 'burning bridges.'
A gatekeeping sponsor for local campaigns, holding practical sway over funding, managers, and strategic advice.
Shapes the Brownian motion between national policy ambitions and local electoral realism, exposing tensions between centralized party control and local autonomy.
Tension between national strategy and local campaign managers' autonomy is implicit and actively referenced.
The DNC is the implied strategic authority whose bridges Scott risks burning; it functions as the national party discipline that constrains local campaign independence and factors into Bartlet's decision to remove a manager perceived as rogue.
Implicitly represented via concerns about 'burning bridges' and national strategy; not present physically but a governing voice in staff calculations.
Exerts top‑down influence over local campaigns and personnel through funding, endorsements, and strategic oversight.
Its potential disapproval shapes White House personnel decisions and highlights tensions between national control and local initiative.
Tension between enforcing national strategy and allowing local tactical flexibility is implied.
The Democratic National Committee is an unseen but active pressure point: Scott's behavior is framed as risking DNC bridges and party resources. The DNC functions as the institutional standard for electability that influences Bartlet's firing and the debate over messaging.
Implied through Scott Holcomb's deference to local strategy and concern about 'burning the DNC's bridges.'
The DNC exerts institutional authority over campaign managers and supplies leverage that national figures must respect to preserve party cohesion.
Highlights tension between White House priorities and party-level calculations; the DNC's presence constrains improvisational local tactics.
Implied friction between national strategy and local managers who feel pressured to produce wins at the risk of party relationships.
The DNC materializes through Josh's directive for Donna to attend its Bismarck platform meeting on contentious issues like North Dakota's inclusion, positioning it as the gravitational force yanking staff from personal spheres; it underscores party machinery's role in sculpting agendas amid welfare fights and election shadows.
Via referenced platform hearing and delegate summons
Exerts pull on White House aides through strategic necessities
Reflects Democratic tensions over identity and welfare amid Ritchie threats
Debates over platform purges test party unity
DNC platform hearings in Bismarck manifest through Harry Conroy's relayed wake-up call, spotlighting North Dakota retention fights and jolting Sam's scandal slump, underscoring party's battleground platform sculpting amid welfare telegrams and Ritchie threats.
Via Chairman Conroy's direct message relay
Exerting peer-pressure authority over White House operatives
Tightens party discipline across state-federal lines
Debates over dropping states like North Dakota
Related Events
Events mentioning this organization
In the Roosevelt Room the meeting opens as light banter peels back into hard politics: Toby and staff bring the hulking Appropriations Bill while Mandy …
Moments after Leo brings the good news that the census amendment will be left in committee and the Appropriations bill is safe, the triumph collapses …
In the Northwest Lobby Josh and Donna quietly interrogate the mechanics and moral danger of Congressman Lillienfield’s leak — Josh explains the oversight committee’s dangerous …
Josh takes the stage in a university lecture hall and reframes the episode as a cautionary, self‑deprecating lecture: there is no "typical" White House day. …
Onstage at a public lecture, Josh converts crisis-control into confessional theater. Prompted by Nessler, he recounts a tight, chaotic 36-hour period that started as an …
In Josh's office a bitter, moral fight softens into a practical negotiating hinge. Jeff presses the ethical case for massive reparations, invoking historical injustice; Josh …
In a chaotic Oval Office briefing, Sam, Josh, and C.J. rapidly outline a intricate Senate committee reshuffle to slot incoming opponent Mitchell onto Foreign Relations, …
In the Oval Office, amid frenetic staff briefings on Senate committee shuffles to block Mitchell, Toby reports unanimous liaison advice to call a lame duck …
Fresh from fury over Ellie's defiance, President Bartlet shifts to Josh's briefing on the Surgeon General's fallout: fierce opposition from Judiciary, Oversight, and Appropriations committees …
Outside a D.C. building, Josh and Senator Ritter briefly marvel at the Haitian crisis's surreal escalation—the president-elect smuggled into the U.S. embassy in a car …
Josh bursts into CJ's office to brief her on the Justice Department's tobacco lawsuit facing a massive funding shortfall and two Democratic defections on the …
In the aftermath of a fractious strategy meeting, Bruno pulls Josh into the hallway en route to his office, bluntly confronting him for prematurely sending …
Leo enters Margaret's office post her tense exchange with Bruno, briskly asking for calls as she hands him urgent notes on White House business. Bruno …
Amid the chaotic Communications Office, Donna intercepts a distracted Josh to probe the committee's jurisdiction over the shares hearings, initially guessing Judiciary. Josh reveals it's …
In the bustling Communications Office, Oliver sharply confronts C.J. for sabotaging the independent probe by manipulating the press and using Ainsley. Donna, piecing together the …
Amid the Roosevelt Room's whip count frenzy, Sam steps into the hallway to urgently pull Charlie aside, warning him that the House committee will offer …
In voice-over against the exterior of the House Oversight Committee Building, Majority Counsel Cliff Calley methodically explains the deposition process to Donna Moss, clarifying the …
In the Northwest Lobby, Leo warmly greets General Adamley with handshakes and banter about his Middle East trip, including jokes about an 'Aviation Prince' and …
In the Mural Room, Toby Ziegler confronts Congresswoman Tawny Cryer, who weaponizes examples of provocative, NEA-funded art—like chocolate-covered nudity and dung cheeseburgers—to justify the Appropriations …
In the White House Counsel's office, Oliver Babish methodically confronts First Lady Abbey Bartlet with her past malpractice suit over a fatal post-CABG infection and …
Chairman Bruno gavels the hearing back to order, signaling Rep. Gibson to resume his pointed questioning of Leo McGarry about October 30th in St. Louis—a …
In the Vice President's office, Hoynes urgently negotiates with Sam to rescue the stalled Internet Education Act, proposing cuts to rural internet funding or bill …
In the Roosevelt Room, Toby Ziegler, fueled by his relentless crusade for public access to political spectacle, sarcastically confronts media directors, accusing them of posturing …
In the Communications Office, Margaret and Donna preside over White House assistants, revealing the Washington Times' impending publication of leaked salary lists from congressional subcommittees, …
In Josh's office, Toby phones in to confirm Josh's deal appointing Brenda as Platform Committee Chairman to clinch the welfare bill vote, probing if his …
Josh parcels out two administrative tasks — the National Committee’s state-convention list and the DPC budget roll-outs — then slides into the familiar, teasing rhythm …
In the limousine Bartlet and Abbey trade intimate, teasing barbs about cancelling the inaugural parade — a small, comic contest that exposes Bartlet's stubborn pride …
In a cramped hotel suite the team reads a cascade of damaging local and national press — a compromising photograph, nitpicky local coverage, and attacks …
At a tense hotel-suite breakfast, Sam McGarry sits surrounded by White House aides as local press hits and campaign missteps are read aloud. A dispute …
Leo delivers bad news: the Chesapeake cleanup bill will not emerge from Committee, a casualty of partisan maneuvering and Deaver's objection to Landis's closeness with …