The “Scrubs” Finale That Wasn’t and “30 Rock” Lost in Washington (and an Upfronts Recap)

[NOTE: The following article will also appear as my regular television column for WILDsound.]

More than five million “Scrubs” fans tuned in last Thursday to watch the last episode of the sitcom for the season (or maybe ever), and, a couple of minutes into the action, most of them probably had the same thought at the same time: What was Dr. Kelso doing in the hospital?

Let me explain. Last Thursday was not only the season finale of “Scrubs,” but the finale of its run on NBC. That means that unless reports were true and ABC was planning on picking up the show (ABC did, in fact, pick up the show this week as a mid-season replacement next year), last Thursday’s edition was to be the series finale.

So loyal fans had every right to expect something special. But what we found was that the last episode of the season wasn’t even the last episode of the season! Three weeks ago, the staff, after doing nothing, finally rallies to save the job of chief of medicine Dr. Kelso (Ken Jenkins), only to have the cranky sexagenarian quit anyway. It was a major moment in “Scrubs” history, since, other than Dr. Elliot Reid’s (Sarah Chalke) short-lived time at an endocrinology fellowship and free clinic (after the fellowship is canceled), the main cast members have stayed in Sacred Heart Hospital for the entire seven-year run of the show. Two weeks ago, Kelso is shown in his retirement, responding to a phone call asking for help from Carla (Judy Reyes) with uncontrolled laughter before hanging up.

So when Dr. Kelso appears in the hospital early in the season finale last week, laying down the law on work hours to the doctors, “Scrubs” Nation let out a collective “What the ....”

Clearly, NBC and/or the show’s producers decided that the theme of the episode that aired last week, in which the cast all take on medieval roles in the bedtime story Dr. Cox (John C. McGinley) tells his son, was grander and more fitting for a finale, in case “Scrubs” did not return next season, than the two episodes that preceded it chronologically. So the network just aired them out of order, holding the Dr. Cox story for last week.

I’m sure the writers’ strike, which led to fewer episodes being shot this season, had the effect of condensing story lines. And I’m also sure that series executive producer Bill Lawrence had a pretty good idea that his creation was heading to ABC next year. But still: After sticking with the show through multiple time-period shifts and routine graveyard scheduling against juggernauts like “Grey’s Anatomy,” the fans deserved better than a non-finale.

At least the episode was funny. It was almost worth having it air out of order to hear Dr. Cox, as a medieval night, say to a disease monster: “My name is Percival Cox. You're killing my friend. Prepare to die,” in an homage to “The Princess Bride.” And more importantly, “Scrubs” fans have another season of the show’s potent mix of silly comedy and heartfelt drama to look forward to, so a lousy season swan song (or, really, a complete lack of one) is a small annoyance to endure.

Maybe bad season finales are contagious, because on the same night that Dr. Kelso stepped into a time machine, “30 Rock” said goodbye for the summer without putting its best foot forward.

Again, I have no doubt that the abbreviated run of episodes faced by show-runners thanks to the strike had to be a royal pain as they tried to wrap up their story arcs for the year. That has to be a big part of the explanation for why “30 Rock,” which is usually so sure-footed and confident in its story telling, finished the season off so haphazardly.

It felt to me that the final half-hour encompassed what was supposed to be the last two offerings of the term. For most of Thursday’s episode, Jack (Alec Baldwin) is in Washington trying to get out of his new job as a Homeland Security director in the comically crumbling Bush administration (along with a beaten-down, ineffectual career government slave named Cooter played by the perfectly cast Matthew Broderick), while, back in New York, Liz (Tina Fey) deals with a pregnancy scare, Tracy (Tracy Morgan) and Frank (Judah Friedlander) work on their porn video game, and Jenna (Jane Krakowski) helps Kenneth (Jack McBrayer) evade the sabotage of the evil head page to get his application in to be a page at the Beijing Olympics. It all leads to Liz deciding she wants a baby. Then, in the last minute, we get a lightening-fast three-month flash-forward that shows us Kenneth being threatened by a gunman while he is in bed with a Chinese woman, Jack about to make out with Cooter (it involves a “gay bomb” ... don’t ask), and Frank emerging (with a full beard) after playing a prototype of the porn video game for three months, prompting Tracy to declare that he is going to be billionaire.

I nearly got whiplash. It’s as if the episode that was supposed to get us to the cliffhangers was left behind when the post-strike cuts were made.

The other problem with the season finale, which has really been an issue for a while now on the show, is that “30 Rock” seems to have lost its focus. Go back and read my description of what the characters were doing in the last episode. Not one word is mentioned about “TGS,” the sketch program they all work on. Jack is not even working for NBC, and, most disturbingly, Jack isn’t even in the same city as Liz. One of the things that made “30 Rock” so great was the interaction of Liz and her co-workers as she tried to put on a good program despite the mountain of obstacles thrown in her way by her colleagues. I want to see her and the gang worrying more about “TGS” and less about increasingly broad side topics like porn video games and pregnancy scares. It’s hard to believe that these story lines come from the same show that introduced us to “MILF Island” (and the faux reality show’s catch line for booting competitors: “We no longer want to hit that. Get off MILF Island!”).

Like “Scrubs,” “30 Rock” will be back next year. I am confident that without the strike interruption, the brilliant comedy will get back on track.

Tonight, the other half of the NBC Thursday night schedule, “My Name Is Earl” and “The Office,” bow out until next season. Let’s hope whatever virus infected the finales of “Scrubs” and “30 Rock” doesn’t jump weeks and afflict “Earl” and “The Office,” too.

**************************************************************************

Here is a quick recap of how the concerns about this week’s upfronts that I wrote about last week played out. I will save my thoughts on the new shows added to the schedule for another day.

NBC
The post-“Office” time slot currently held by “Scrubs” will be filled by a prime-time, politically oriented version of “Saturday Night Live” until the election. An “Office” spin-off will then jump into the 9:30 space for the second half of the year. And Jimmy Fallon was, in fact, tapped to take over for Conan O’Brien when he moves into the host’s chair of “The Tonight Show.”

ABC
The big news, of course, is that “Scrubs” will join ABC as a mid-season replacement next year. “The New Adventures of Old Christine,” however, was picked up by CBS, so it won’t be moving to ABC. “October Road” and “Miss Guided,” two guilty pleasures of mine, didn’t make the cut, along with “Carpoolers” and “Caveman,” which will be missed by nobody.

CBS
I am ready to send flowers to CBS head honcho Les Moonves. Not only did the network renew “How I Met Your Mother,” it also added a second night of sitcoms. Yes, you read that correctly, a broadcast network is opting voluntarily to air more sitcoms next season than it did this year. Please look away. I don’t want you to see me cry, even if they are tears of joy.

Fox
The Murdoch network canned the promising “Back to You” and yet found room for another season of the generally reviled “’Til Death.” Go figure. “New Amsterdam” also didn’t make the schedule. Nice to see my occasional guilty pleasures “Don’t Forget the Lyrics!” and “Are You Smarter Than a 5th Grader?” return. Let’s hope the “Lyrics!” producers decide to do more celebrity episodes. Watching Bret Michaels go out on the hair metal category was priceless.

CW
The CW canceled “Aliens in America,” opting to include only two sitcoms on its entire schedule. Interestingly, the mini-network licensed its Sunday nights out to an outside company to handle the programming, much in the same way the networks rent out weekend mornings to companies to air kids’ shows. Sunday nights are a heavy viewing night, but it’s also a time that the big networks unleash their heavy hitters, which usually resulted in the CW’s slate getting pummeled in the ratings. Not sure what kind of shows the licensing deal will leave us with, but it will be interesting to see what happens.

Olbermann's Rant Against Bush Was a Breath of Fresh Air

Last night, at 10:45 p.m. or so, I sat and watched as Keith Olbermann eviscerated the sitting president of the United States.

The current media environment is such that there was something shocking about the directness Olbermann showed in responding to several of George W. Bush's assertions made during a Politicico.com interview.

But, and I'm sure I'm not alone, I loved it.

It was gratifying to see a member of the media, even one known for holding liberal views, angrily and articulately espousing what so many Americans (based on Bush's 28 percent approval rating, maybe even most Americans) believe. And I won't lie: I liked seeing a liberal commentator be so fearless and forceful in fighting back against an administration that has successfully bullied the press, Congress, other members of the executive branch and, via the use of fear mongering, the American people for the last seven-plus years.

The mere fact that in 2008 a news commentator had the chops to put together a well-organized, well-written and well-researched 12-minute (yes, the commentary is 12 minutes long) piece is, in and of itself, an accomplishment. I am fully aware that conservatives, many of whom despise Olbermann (probably not in small part for his constant and cutting criticisms of conservative commentators/circus side shows Bill O'Reilly and Rush Limbaugh), will dismiss his remarks as being just another liberal rant against Bush. But I challenge anyone to point out any serious logical or factual flaws in the arguments that lie below Olbermann's acidic delivery.

I'm sure critics will also call Olbermann disrespectful for using such coarse language in describing Bush and his administration. Those same critics will criticize Olbermann, a television news commentator, for showing emotion, in this case anger and rage.

But it was Olbermann's unabashed, uncensored calling out of the president and his people, and his unhidden anger, that made the commentary so special. For the last seven-plus years, this administration has run roughshod over the constitution, the government, the American people and everything that makes the United States of America a special country. People should be angry. People should be pointing fingers. It's about time. As Bush took apart this country's ideals and reputation, two bricks at a time, people were too silent and too civil. Olbermann has been one of the few people unafraid to scream from the rafters that an assault on our country's values was under way. And last night's speech was no different.

I think everybody should watch Olbermann's commentary. Some will be appalled, but far more people, I think, will be heartened. They will find Olbermann's assertions true, and his anger justified. Watching will be a validating experience for many, witnessing a public figure give voice to what is inside of their heads and hearts. And for those who hate Olbermann and/or approve of Bush? They should watch anyway to see what so many of us are feeling.

You can watch the first part of Olbermann's commentary here, and the second section here. I will also embed the videos at the bottom of the post.

I am curious to see the reaction to Olbermann's attack. There was a time, I'm sure, when conservatives would have rioted, demanding General Electric remove him from the air. But I will be surprised if last night's tirade even registers a blip on the country's radar now. I think the country has had it with Bush and his antics, and, more importantly, Republicans. When the Republicans can't hold a U.S. House of Representative seat in Mississippi (in a district Bush carried in 2004 by 20 points), even though money was spent linking the Democrat to Barack Obama and Rev. Jeremiah Wright, it shows how angry Americans are. The sound of shoulders shrugging at Olbermann's remarks could be deafening, which would really demonstrate a change in how things are now in these United States.

Which is why I am probably far from the only person with this thought on my mind: Thank you Keith Olbermann. Keep up the good work.

Part 1 of Keith Olbermann's May 14, 2008 Special Commentary on George W. Bush


Part 2

Clinton's Victory in West Virginia Should Have Generated Different Headlines

If an alien landed in the United States last night and turned on CNN and MSNBC, the ET probably would have thought that West Virginia was the center of the country, and that the lady in the pants suit speaking to an adoring audience was close to being the next president. The full-court-press coverage of the West Virginia Democratic primary, complete with CNN's panel of experts that approximately equalled the size of the crowd at a Hannah Montana concert, and MSNBC's deployment of its "A" team of Chris Matthews, Keith Olbermann and Tim Russert for the entire evening (What, was John Chancellor's corpse asking for too much money to appear?), gave the night the feel of an important election day.

Only, it wasn't.

The discussion amongst the journalists and pundits centered on whether Hillary Clinton's landslide win over Barack Obama had changed anything in the race for the Democratic presidential nomination, and whether the results showed that white blue-collar voters won't cast a ballot for Obama.

Isn't that an awful lot to read into an election in a small state where about 330,000 people voted and only 28 delegates were awarded?

Looking back on last night's primary results, contrary to the coverage of CNN and MSNBC, I saw a different set of headlines.

Headline: Clinton Picks Up 12 Delegates
Clinton picked up 12 more delegates than Obama (20 to 8), meaning that Obama's overall pledged delegate lead is now 156 (1600 to 1444, according to CNN) instead of 168, with only 185 or so pledged delegates left to be awarded. So from a purely numerical standpoint, last night's primary result was virtually meaningless. A fact that surely would have shocked our visiting alien.

Headline: Obama Picks Up Two Superdelegates
In fact, after the West Virginia results were announced, two undeclared superdelegates threw their support to Obama. While Clinton's decisive victory made for a nice media story, the party seems to be moving forward under the assumption that short of a major gaffe, the nomination will belong to Obama.

Headline: West Virginia Didn't Hold the Most Important Election Yesterday
If you don't believe that there are bigger issues in play than the Clinton-Obama clash, consider this: In a special election for a U.S. House of Representatives seat yesterday, the Democrat beat the Republican. Oh, wait, I seem to have buried the lead: The district is in northern Mississippi, and the seat had been held by a Republican since 1994. Bush won 60 percent of the vote in the district in 2004, and the Republican strategy in the special election was to tie the Democratic candidate to Obama. This Democratic win follows similar recent victories in special elections for seats formerly held by Republicans in Illinois and Louisiana.

What does this have to do with the Democratic presidential race? Well, consider that the Clinton camp is arguing that the result in West Virginia demonstrated that Clinton is more electable than Obama, because she has been able to get far more of the blue-collar white vote than he has.

But the result in Mississippi illustrated that the question of who will win in this year's general election goes beyond the cults of Clinton and Obama. Sure, white blue-collar voters have seemed to prefer Clinton to Obama, and that played out in West Virginia, where a majority of the voters did not have a college degree. But if Obama is so scary to these voters, why did the Republican strategy fail in Mississippi? Well, I would argue that just because white collar voters like Clinton, it doesn't mean that those same voters will vote for McCain in November if Obama gets the nomination. In fact, a Quinnipiac University poll released today has Obama beating McCain by a larger margin than Clinton (47 to 40 versus 46 to 41).

Clearly, the polls at this stage are virtually meaningless, with so much time remaining before November. But the point remains that just because Clinton is doing well with a demographic now, it doesn't mean that the same demographic won't support Obama in November.

Headline: Clinton's Electability Argument Ignores Two Key Points
The electability argument offered by Clinton and her supporters vociferously all over the television yesterday ignores two issues that, for some reason, are rarely raised by the media.

First of all, the Clinton campaign takes as a given that success in primaries automatically translates to success in general elections. If that point was true, we would be discussing the last eight years of the Gore administration. In 2000, Al Gore won the Democratic primary in New Hampshire, while George W. Bush was trounced by 16 points by John McCain on the Republican side. By Clinton's theory, that would have boded well for Gore in November, but, in actuality, Bush beat Gore by a percentage point in the general election. Had Gore carried New Hampshire's four electoral votes, he would have been sworn into office in January of 2001 instead of Bush.

Primary elections ask voters to choose which candidate they would like to see be the nominee of a party. General elections than ask a very different question, namely which candidate of which party do you want to see hold the job. Think of the issue in terms of the states not in play in November. Sure, McCain easily won the New York Republican primary, and Clinton trounced Obama in the state, but you would be hard-pressed to find a McCain staffer who thinks McCain can beat either Clinton or Obama in New York in November. Similarly, it's very nice that Obama solidly defeated Clinton in Alabama by 12 points while McCain managed only 37 percent of the vote in the state, losing to Mike Huckabee. But I'm sure Obama's staffers aren't counting on any electoral votes from Alabama in the general election.

The second elephant in the room (pun intended, because the Republicans know it all too well) is Clinton's unfavorability ratings. It's Election Strategy 101 that candidates with high negatives in poll numbers have trouble winning elections. One major metric used by the parties to gauge which senate and house seats are vulnerable to challenge is the disapproval rating of the incumbent. And while there is no doubt that Clinton has pockets of fiercely loyal support, when it comes to the national perception, she consistently maintains shockingly high disapproval ratings.

As far back as last July, before the campaign turned competitive and, at times, nasty, Clinton, who at the time was the front runner in all of the national polls by large margins, still had a 48 percent disapproval rating in a Gallup poll. Things have only deteriorated from there. In March, a Gallup poll revealed that only 44 percent of respondents found Clinton "honest and trustworthy" (compared to 63 percent for Obama and 67 percent for McCain) and only 47 percent would "be proud to have [her] as president" (compared to 55 percent for McCain and 57 percent for Obama). By a mid-April Washington Post-ABC News poll, only 39 percent of respondents found Clinton to be "honest and trustworthy," thanks, most likely, to the Clinton campaign's decision to go negative in Pennsylvania.

A study done in early May by the Pew Research Center found that Clinton lagged behind both Obama and McCain in nearly every measurement of integrity and likability. Consider these numbers:

Honest:
McCain 65 percent
Obama 61 percent
Clinton 42 percent

Phony:
McCain 26 percent
Obama 32 percent
Clinton 50 percent

Hard-to-Like:
Obama 25 percent
McCain 37 percent
Clinton 53 percent

Arrogant:
McCain 36 percent
Obama 38 percent
Clinton 55 percent

You might think that these traits should have no bearing on who would make the best president, but, remember, we are talking about Clinton's electability argument here, and there is no doubt that likability and trust are key issues to voters in presidential elections.

The Pew poll showed that Obama's numbers had slipped a bit from March to April (thanks in no small part to the flap over the sermons of Rev. Jeremiah Wright, I'm sure), but even with Obama's losses, he still had considerably higher ratings than Clinton in every category.

I am not suggesting whether the negative perception of Clinton is fair or not. That's a separate argument. What I am saying is that this view has been consistently held by the electorate, and would have a profound influence on the results in November if she was the Democratic nominee.

To be clear, my point here is not that Obama can win or that Clinton cannot. Again, those are separate arguments. The special election in Mississippi for the house seat shows an opening for both Democrats in November, and the clear liabilities of the two Democrats -- along with the false image of McCain's independence held by many voters -- demonstrate the potential for both Democrats to lose the general election.

My point is simply that when Clinton and her supporters forcefully argue that results like the one in West Virginia last night establish that Clinton is more electable, they are conveniently leaving out the unreliability of primaries as an indicator of general election success and her historic record of low favorability ratings.

Headline: Clinton Gives the Speech in West Virginia That She Should Have Given in Indiana
Olbermann announced on MSNBC last night that Clinton campaign chair Terry McAuliffe said that Clinton's victory speech in West Virginia would be the greatest speech of all time. While I think the work of Franklin Roosevelt, John Kennedy and Stephen Colbert at the 2006 White House Correspondents' Association Dinner are safe from Clinton's challenge, and while her remarks contained some world-class obfuscation regarding the rules and history related to the seating of the delegates from Florida and Michigan, the speech was responsible from the point of view of limiting the damage to the party's chances in November.

Unlike her "this is the tie-breaker, it's on to the White House" delusion-fest after Indiana and North Carolina, Clinton avoided saying a negative word about Obama last night. In fact, she went to great lengths to accomplish three goals, only one of which would negatively impact Obama: She argued to the superdelegates that she was the more electable Democrat, she asked for money, and she went to great lengths to say that the most important thing to her is beating McCain in November, almost as if she was auditioning for a place as Obama's running mate.

While the electability portion of her speech disturbed me a bit (based on the points I made above about the flaws in her arguments), over all, I was very pleased that her statements had taken on a more civil and conciliatory tone. Sure, in an ideal world, Clinton goes on television tonight and tells her supporters that she is stepping aside to give the Democrats the chance to get behind a candidate and beat McCain in November, but they should support Obama with the same gusto with which they supported her, because the two of them are more alike than different. But we know that's not happening. So I'm happy to settle for Clinton continuing in the race, but avoiding the kind of divisive statements about Obama she has been prone to making, like her remark to USA Today on Thursday that "Sen. Obama's support among working, hard-working Americans, white Americans, is weakening again."

If Clinton's post-West Virginia address represents her approach to the remainder of the campaign, that's good news for the Democrats. If her strategy is, as some of the pundits suggested last night, to be the understudy, acting presidential, talking positively, and standing ready, willing and able to serve if Obama trips between now and August, then the next few weeks should not hurt Obama's general election race. Only time will tell if Clinton sticks to this course, though.

Pity our poor alien friend, trying to figure out this mess. If the mob of "experts" on CNN and the Mount Rushmore of NBC political hosts can't get to the real issues, what hope does he or she (or it, if the alien is from a nongendered race) have?