Love the series, but it was relatively outrageous to see a glaring oversight in the final episode. When Bartlett and wife are talking about the idiocy of holding the inauguration outside in January, Bartlett credits the Founders. This is such an out-of-character mistake for Bartlett and the show in general. The 20th Amendment, passed in the 1930s, moved the inauguration from March to January. What's really bad about this oversight is that the Amendment affected FDR--Bartlett's political analogue--and that the 20th amendment featured prominently in the show's plot in earlier seasons. Bartlett, and the show writers, would have never made this mistake under Sorkin or in the early years. Hate to nitpick, but I'm just the kind of observant viewer this show typically rewards.

i too noticed the 20th amendment slip up. i'd also say his other major sin of office was sinking to par for the course of any american president (spare maybe jimmy carter) when he assassinated the shiek of omar or whatever it was called.

I disagree that the final episode did not show Bartlett's "regret". It was done in a classy and non-cliche manner by Sheen's ACTING and a restrained script. Did Mr. Manjoo just fail to notice? This subtlness has been a (usually) fine WW characteristic from Sorkin and, often, from Welles.

Ann R.

I won't belabor the issue but I really enjoyed the show and it didn't really "jump the shark" until the kidnap thing . . . yet I still wanted to watch.

I had a completely different reaction. Rather than a nice fasten your seatbelt close, I saw a new West Wing staff that I would wholeheartedly continue to watch. The Santos' marriage is enough to keep me interested in a few more seasons.

I am looking forward to seeing Tim Busfield, hopefully in a meatier role. I enjoy his work (forget that thing with the cats, oy vey) and okay I admit, have had somewhat of a crush on him since 30-Something. His last scene with C.J. had me in tears. "I'll talk!!!" I was saying to the tv.

I will say that Matt Santos is far from a "standard issue" democrat. He wasn't afraid to say what he REALLY thought, and didn't bullshit just to get elected.

Does that sound like any "standard issue" dems we know to you?

As Cory points out, the failure of this "Bartlet" -- or anyone, apparently, among the writers, producers and actors -- to know that it wasn't the Founders who put the inauguration in January, was bizarre. I don't think it's "nitpicking" to point this out. The Bartlet of old, who loved regaling his staff with political and historical trivia of all kinds, who was himself descended from a Founder and who majored in American Studies at Notre Dame, would have certainly known this. In fact, he would have known every detail about it right down to which Congressman sponsored the legislation to get the date changed. When the episode starts right out with such an unbelievable mistake, you know you're not looking at the "real" Jed Bartlet; you're looking at a much lesser writer's lame attempt to mimic him. It's as if you came to see Michaelangelo's "Moses," but instead they gave you a mass-produced souvenir knockoff of it that someone had picked up at the airport gift shop.

There was also some really lazy writing in the way exposition was delivered, notably the scene where the Santoses are getting a rundown of the day's schedule. The old "West Wing" would have had Staffer A telling Staffer B this kind of stuff while they rushed down a hallway. Instead, right after the president-elect is told that he'll be seeing off the former president -- as if he didn't know that -- and before anyone even mentions the evening events, he says, "Do I get to start GOVERNING anytime in here?" I suppose that's an attempt to have him speak for the audience, but come on, he knows Inauguration Day is all about ceremonial stuff and lasts all evening. In reality, I think the new president would be focused on the fact that his biggest supporters and donors would be at various events -- all the people he owes his career and election to -- and he'd want to know who was booked where so he could make sure none of them got overlooked.

And did anyone else notice that in that early scene with Bartlet and the gaffe about the dates, he's photographed so that the shadows falling across his face make him look like Adolf Hitler? Until he moves slightly, and then the shadow encircles his nose and makes him look like Bozo the Clown. Not deliberate, I'm sure, but it seems these people look at the dailies (or whatever they're called in TV) about as closely as they fact-check the scripts.

Having said all that, the episodes leading up the finale -- the first I'd watched in a long time -- were pretty good, and overall the series was one of the best ever on American TV. It turned policymaking into drama that wasn't just compelling but popular. I would never have thought that was possible.

And why, when I slip and end up reading reviews, I find myself thinking the same thing: "Were we watching the same show?"

It's Mr. Manjoo's job to critique. To find fault. To pick and whine and bitch. In this way, this is a very effective review. So he sits in front of his television and watches, waiting for something he can bitch and whine about, then makes a note of it when it comes up. The West Wing was brilliant because never once did they ever talk down to their audience. They maintained that level of intelligence throughout, even through the last episode, though I'm sure it didn't meet Mr. Manjoo's exacting standards. Some shows did better than others. The end of Sorkin's reign and the beginning of the Wells' era was a bit bumpy, yes, but they weathered it and provided a final two seasons that were full of intelligence, wit and creativity.

A series finale, though, is not like any other episode in any show's history. Here's where the audience who has been loyally watching this show (unlike Mr. Manjoo, who I just know never watches television because he's too busy going to experimental theatre and book readings by obscure post-post-modern authors, and only watched this weekend because Salon offered to pay him to do it) gets to have what they want and edgy, avant garde crap isn't it. What we want after living with these characters for seven years -- after inviting them into our homes and watching them live and work and fall in love and break up and have babies and lose parents -- both in first-run and in syndication -- what we really want is to leave them knowing that they'll be okay. We want to let them go, knowing that they'll be in good hands, and that they'll live, if not happily ever after, then at least as happy as they could be for as long as they can be.

In this way, the finale was a complete and total slam dunk. The series and its witty, stylish dialogue, its intelligent subject matter, its quick, "keep-up-or-die" direction for most of the seven seasons it was on was so thrilling to watch, and we did, with gusto. That was all for the discerning eye of Mr. Manjoo.

Sunday's show, though, wasn't for critics, and it wasn't for newcomers and it wasn't for the network brass. It was for the writers, the actors and the loyal, long-time audience members, so we all could have a chance to tie things up, have one last laugh, and then say goodbye, knowing that characters that we'd come to care about were going to be just fine. That was our shindig, Mr. Manjoo, and you were nothing more than an uninvited guest. Bad form to crash our party and trash talk our hors d'oeuvre.

~AS~