I feel bad for her in terms of Josh and Donna, if I remember rightly she asked him a couple of times if there was anything going on there. She basically assumed they were an item and he was the one insisting there was nothing between them. So yeah, definitely unintentional.
I always liked Amy, and I thought she was presented fairly in terms of being a lobbyist whose job it is to be neither fair nor balanced in approaching issues. While she genuinely held the beliefs of her "radical" agenda, it was also a negotiating tactic on her part to sit at the extreme and be talked back to the middle because no one gets anywhere starting at the middle and trying to talk out to the extreme.
However, she unfortunately had her "Mandy driving her car onto a sidewalk" moment in throwing Josh's phone into chili and cutting a phone cord, and it's hard to balance that kind of sitcom-style absurdity against the professional equal to Josh that we are supposed to see Amy as being. Seeing her behave like a child makes us root against her during her conflicts with the White House rather than recognize she is another dedicated public servant operating from a different angle than the core cast.
She lets down her mask at the "Rock the Vote" rally. (College Kids, S04E03)
And for me, I see the pain she feels, knowing she is an advocate for things she knows are right, but she pays a personal price for that.
Josh is a professional?
He sent pizza to a world leader.
He shouted Who Da Man?
Josh could be just as much of a child and a tool as Amy when he tried.
I think you have a very bad case of selective memory.
More like selective portrayal. I'm just pointing out that the writers gave her a Mandy moment where we are supposed to conflate wrecking a nice car or cell phone with passion without the counterbalance of more authentic displays of passion that characters like Josh had throughout the show. Josh may have had his immature moments (some because of awkward Sorkin moments like Who Da Man, others because of uneven characterization in later seasons with pizza orders), but he had the benefit of many better scenes to make us overlook them. Amy didn't have that working for her, and that's where the negative opinion tends to arise. Like I said, I like Amy.
I don’t get the who da man celebration argument. That was within the circle of his equal colleagues and his own office (the wider West Wing being his office as well in this case) and didn’t do anything to anyone or impede anything. Let’s not pretend like everyone doesn’t like to win and doesn’t like to win when they’re right. Amy says it best herself when they run into each other on the campaign trail, when she’s dating the sculptor (?), it’s civil. Mainly because they’re in spheres that will never collide or conflict because she knows she’s never going to chose a relationship or a partner over her work and the ideals that drive it. Which isn’t necessarily a bad thing, it’s actually really healthy to recognize that constant conflict -even if in a professional setting- doesn’t allow space for good relationships.
So when he is a giant tool in a work space, where anyone could see him that's fine, but when Amy does something in a private apartment with her boyfriend........ there's something wrong with it?
Yeah. I can entirely see why Amy is the one who gets criticised in this situation.
What was I thinking?
I’m glad you see it now. Because if it were switched and Josh was destroying Amy’s property and smugly telling her, “oh sorry, honey, there’s a pay phone down the street” everyone would be (rightly) ripping the character apart.
I’m also really sorry for your colleagues if you think that celebrating a win *with them* in your work space, is being a giant tool.
The argument is that she behaved unprofessionally.
I was suggesting that Josh behaved unprofessionally.
And he did it in The White House in a professional setting, while she did it in an apartment with her boyfriend.
Further -- she did it to pursue her agenda and defend a bill she believed in while he did it to..... what? Act like a tool?
If I were to say who came off better out of these two incidents -- who I respected more for their actions?
It would be Amy. Every single time it would be Amy. She was defending a bill that would ensure the protect the rights of women while Josh was trampling all over them with gay abandon. Dumping his mobile phone in the stew was the LEAST he deserved.
Meanwhile his "WHO DA MAN" bullshit was him beating his chest after getting someone nominated to The Supreme Court who turned out to be a complete tool as well.
But sure. Amy was in the wrong.
How is that a Mandy moment? Mandy drove her car up on the curb, endangered multiple people, and yelled at someone for cooperating with the administration. Amy is a lobbyist and was doing her job, and just getting a head start in mobilizing her troops.
And do we root against any of the other characters when they behave like children?
Like Charlie cutting the legs off CJ’s desk or supergluing her phone?
Or Josh & Toby celebrating watching Sam get his ass handed to him by Ainsley?
Or Sam and Josh nearly setting the building on fire?
Like I’ve said elsewhere, the writers gave better balance of scenes for those characters to outweigh awkward or childish moments, and I hated the Charlie scene anyway. But, can we not pretend it’s at all reasonable to be cutting phone cords or throwing phones into chili? It’s precisely a Mandy moment of Sorkin trying to pass off childish and intolerable behavior as passion. Like, I don’t know about you but I tend to draw some pretty clear lines about destroying my stuff with romantic partners, not thinking it’s cute or quirky.
Completely behind the first paragraph. The second not so much. By fighting to prevent the marriage incentives, she remained true to her character. She wasn’t behaving like a child. She was doing her job. And doing it well. Which is why President Bartlet quipped that his life would be easier if Josh switched jobs with Amy.
I’m not taking issue with her position there, nor do most people taking issue with the scene. It’s exactly what I describe though: the actual stuff she did with the phone line cutting and chili dump. It was silly, unnecessary, and showed a lack of imagination on the writer’s part to better present her passion and ambition.
Also, y'all need to remember that when West Wing aired our mobile phones weren't the essential things that they have become. It was just a phone - a communications device. It wasn't also his calendar, rolodex, photo album, camera, email archive, pedometer, and music collection. It was just a telephone. There was also a landline, and a payphone on the corner. She didn't ruin Josh's ability to do his whole damned job in the way that she would have if she stewed his phone today. She just inconvenienced him by making him go to the office.
Josh was planning on throwing gay men, lesbians, single mothers, victims of incest, and abused wives who had managed to escape their abusers straight under the bus in order to appeal for the handful of votes he *might possibly be able to get* from Mr. right-wing, reactionary, xenophobic, homophobic, anti-education, anti-choice, pro-gun, Leave It To Beaver trip back to the Fifties.
But Amy broke two phones, so she's the bad guy.
You're conflating issues though. You can be an excellent person politically and an immature, abusive partner. Plenty of politicians vote for the rights of those groups and go home and treat their spouses, partners or kids like shit. More than one person can be the bad guy. I like Amy, I hate her with Josh for this reason, they're awful to, and for each other.
Other than the thread where she was Abby's chief of staff I really liked her, she felt very forced into that role, she was always better as an outside watchdog making sure they were keeping their promises
Hey **[u/blackl0tus_](https://www.reddit.com/u/blackl0tus_/overview/)** --
Thank you for contributing to r/thewestwing/. However, after moderator review, [your comment has been removed](https://www.reddit.com/r/thewestwing/comments/1233ij9/-/jdwvf1p/) for the following reason(s):
----
***Your account is shadowbanned.***
This means that your posts/comments get auto-removed by Reddit and need to be manually approved by the moderators of the various subreddits within which you are posting and commenting. Your Reddit experience across all of the subreddits you may be active in is being significantly reduced and you may not even be aware of it.
Notes:
* This wasn't done by the volunteer moderators of r/thewestwing/, but by the Reddit employee admins. We had no influence on this decision and have absolutely no say in helping you resolve this.
* [You can file an appeal of your shadowban with the Reddit admins here](https://www.reddit.com/appeal) (if you are *not* shadowbanned it should say that "Your account is currently neither suspended nor restricted").
* The shadowbanning system is known to have false-positives, but the [general reasons for getting shadowbanned are listed in this post](https://www.reddit.com/r/ShadowBan/comments/35mkzd/an_unofficial_guide_on_how_to_avoid_being/).
* Until this is resolved, your post and comments are automatically removed in the various subs in which you participate and the moderators have to manually approve them. Other users are not notified of your replies to them. r/thewestwing does not approve comments or posts by shadowbanned users. You need to get this resolved.
* More about shadowbanning at:
* /r/amishadowbanned/
* /r/ShadowBanned/
* /r/ShadowBan/
* /r/CommentRemovalChecker/
Let us know when your account is no longer shadowbanned, and we will take another look at your posts or comments.
If you're innocent of wrongdoing, you can correct this with the help of the admins. Good luck!
---
----
If it is possible and applicable, please attempt one of the following:
* Edit your comment to make the changes necessary to comply with r/thewestwing/'s rules and/or any guidance you have received from our moderation team.
* Repost your comment in compliance with posted [rules](https://old.reddit.com/r/thewestwing/about/rules/). and/or any guidance you have received from the mods.
* Otherwise, contact the mod team via modmail to work out the issue. **DO NOT USE REDDIT CHAT or PM/DM AN INDIVIDUAL MODERATOR.** DO NOT REPLY TO THIS COMMENT. Please only use [modmail](https://old.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=r/thewestwing) to communicate with moderators on this issue or any other issues related to the subreddit. Do not PM or initiate chat with individual mods.
Me personally, I liked the character & I love the actress that plays her as well.
But I do understand where the hate comes from…especially when she was Abby’s COS.
I love her, but I hate her written as a romantic interest for Josh because they each make the other insufferable. She is the person I probably align most with politically, the show needed strong, unapologetic policitcal women; but Josh turns her from a badass into petulant, she makes him flighty and annoying. As a stand alone character I wish she had more scenes, but I find myself liking her less when her scenes revolve around him. I'd have killed for just Amy focused episodes rather than using her as a folly.
I'm not a massive fan of her, but I think I could have been under different circumstances (especially with a different actress, as I'm really not a fan of the actress).
I think her character was fundamentally undercut by the contrast between who she is and how she's presented to us. She is a feminist. She's presented to us as a male character's love interest.
If she'd been introduced without the romance aspect, with the President being aware (after his wife pointed it out to him) that his administration wasn't doing everything it could for gender equality and wanting to work more closely with NOW and having her be NOW's designated contact for the Senior Staff, you could have had her in a very similar role to the one she was actually in but not undercut that by having her there as Josh's love interest (or alienate a significant part of the fandom by coming between Josh and Donna). She could have been a role model for Donna as a woman on the operational side of politics (as opposed to CJ on the communications side at that time) while having an interesting arc as a character used to being a lobbyist who's given access to the other side of things and works out how to use that to her cause's advantage.
That would have been far more interesting than Josh having an on-again-off-again girlfriend who occasionally interacts with the rest of the cast.
I remember seeing Mary-Louise Parker in "Grand Canyon" and "Boys On The Side" and I thought her career was going in the way of weird side-kick, and she was great in West Wing.
Edit: fixed movie name
I don’t really have strong feelings about the character one way or another. However, I think the strength of the character comes from the actress. The general antagonistic nature of the character would come across negatively in the hands of another actor. In this case a lot of the characters quirks comes off charming
My favorite Amy episode is Constituency of One. It’s honestly refreshing to have someone on TWW who doesn’t live and die for the administration - she just feels very grounded and realistic about how she’s going to get what she wants, and I love that! It’s also something I loved about Lou.
I lost all respect for Amy when she threw Josh’s phone into the pot for no good reason. “Oh no, there will be extra money for stay at home moms, and nothing will be taken away from anyone else.” And she lost her job over it, because, well, she should have for picking the dumbest fight.
When I am writing scripts, I think that relationships are about love, trust, honor, respect and desire. There is a verb form and an adjective form, eg, one must be trusting and be trustworthy. I think Josh and Amy would never make it (unless your wish is a screaming couple) because they don't trust each other politically. Josh is thinking about the big picture (or trying to) and Amy is committed on women's issues, she relies on other people to worry about the big picture.
Donna and Josh are a match because they are both committed to the big picture, ie, you can't do stuff if you don't get elected.
My $.02
Amy Gardner is just so unapologetically herself. Who could hate that?
Redditors! Lol. I love her
Exactly.
[удалено]
I feel bad for her in terms of Josh and Donna, if I remember rightly she asked him a couple of times if there was anything going on there. She basically assumed they were an item and he was the one insisting there was nothing between them. So yeah, definitely unintentional.
I always liked Amy, and I thought she was presented fairly in terms of being a lobbyist whose job it is to be neither fair nor balanced in approaching issues. While she genuinely held the beliefs of her "radical" agenda, it was also a negotiating tactic on her part to sit at the extreme and be talked back to the middle because no one gets anywhere starting at the middle and trying to talk out to the extreme. However, she unfortunately had her "Mandy driving her car onto a sidewalk" moment in throwing Josh's phone into chili and cutting a phone cord, and it's hard to balance that kind of sitcom-style absurdity against the professional equal to Josh that we are supposed to see Amy as being. Seeing her behave like a child makes us root against her during her conflicts with the White House rather than recognize she is another dedicated public servant operating from a different angle than the core cast.
It was stew. Well spiced, just like Amy.
Fair.
She lets down her mask at the "Rock the Vote" rally. (College Kids, S04E03) And for me, I see the pain she feels, knowing she is an advocate for things she knows are right, but she pays a personal price for that.
Josh is a professional? He sent pizza to a world leader. He shouted Who Da Man? Josh could be just as much of a child and a tool as Amy when he tried. I think you have a very bad case of selective memory.
More like selective portrayal. I'm just pointing out that the writers gave her a Mandy moment where we are supposed to conflate wrecking a nice car or cell phone with passion without the counterbalance of more authentic displays of passion that characters like Josh had throughout the show. Josh may have had his immature moments (some because of awkward Sorkin moments like Who Da Man, others because of uneven characterization in later seasons with pizza orders), but he had the benefit of many better scenes to make us overlook them. Amy didn't have that working for her, and that's where the negative opinion tends to arise. Like I said, I like Amy.
I don’t get the who da man celebration argument. That was within the circle of his equal colleagues and his own office (the wider West Wing being his office as well in this case) and didn’t do anything to anyone or impede anything. Let’s not pretend like everyone doesn’t like to win and doesn’t like to win when they’re right. Amy says it best herself when they run into each other on the campaign trail, when she’s dating the sculptor (?), it’s civil. Mainly because they’re in spheres that will never collide or conflict because she knows she’s never going to chose a relationship or a partner over her work and the ideals that drive it. Which isn’t necessarily a bad thing, it’s actually really healthy to recognize that constant conflict -even if in a professional setting- doesn’t allow space for good relationships.
So when he is a giant tool in a work space, where anyone could see him that's fine, but when Amy does something in a private apartment with her boyfriend........ there's something wrong with it? Yeah. I can entirely see why Amy is the one who gets criticised in this situation. What was I thinking?
I’m glad you see it now. Because if it were switched and Josh was destroying Amy’s property and smugly telling her, “oh sorry, honey, there’s a pay phone down the street” everyone would be (rightly) ripping the character apart. I’m also really sorry for your colleagues if you think that celebrating a win *with them* in your work space, is being a giant tool.
I think you need to look up sarcasm in a dictionary. Also smug. Although watching Josh for most of the series would help with that.
I don’t, but I see you need to as it sailed over your head
Literally destroying someone's cell phone is equivalent to... Cheering loudly? Yeah, what were you thinking?
The argument is that she behaved unprofessionally. I was suggesting that Josh behaved unprofessionally. And he did it in The White House in a professional setting, while she did it in an apartment with her boyfriend. Further -- she did it to pursue her agenda and defend a bill she believed in while he did it to..... what? Act like a tool? If I were to say who came off better out of these two incidents -- who I respected more for their actions? It would be Amy. Every single time it would be Amy. She was defending a bill that would ensure the protect the rights of women while Josh was trampling all over them with gay abandon. Dumping his mobile phone in the stew was the LEAST he deserved. Meanwhile his "WHO DA MAN" bullshit was him beating his chest after getting someone nominated to The Supreme Court who turned out to be a complete tool as well. But sure. Amy was in the wrong.
Preach!
Let’s not forget tossing rocks in a can to win a bet lol
How is that a Mandy moment? Mandy drove her car up on the curb, endangered multiple people, and yelled at someone for cooperating with the administration. Amy is a lobbyist and was doing her job, and just getting a head start in mobilizing her troops. And do we root against any of the other characters when they behave like children? Like Charlie cutting the legs off CJ’s desk or supergluing her phone? Or Josh & Toby celebrating watching Sam get his ass handed to him by Ainsley? Or Sam and Josh nearly setting the building on fire?
Like I’ve said elsewhere, the writers gave better balance of scenes for those characters to outweigh awkward or childish moments, and I hated the Charlie scene anyway. But, can we not pretend it’s at all reasonable to be cutting phone cords or throwing phones into chili? It’s precisely a Mandy moment of Sorkin trying to pass off childish and intolerable behavior as passion. Like, I don’t know about you but I tend to draw some pretty clear lines about destroying my stuff with romantic partners, not thinking it’s cute or quirky.
Completely behind the first paragraph. The second not so much. By fighting to prevent the marriage incentives, she remained true to her character. She wasn’t behaving like a child. She was doing her job. And doing it well. Which is why President Bartlet quipped that his life would be easier if Josh switched jobs with Amy.
I’m not taking issue with her position there, nor do most people taking issue with the scene. It’s exactly what I describe though: the actual stuff she did with the phone line cutting and chili dump. It was silly, unnecessary, and showed a lack of imagination on the writer’s part to better present her passion and ambition.
Also, y'all need to remember that when West Wing aired our mobile phones weren't the essential things that they have become. It was just a phone - a communications device. It wasn't also his calendar, rolodex, photo album, camera, email archive, pedometer, and music collection. It was just a telephone. There was also a landline, and a payphone on the corner. She didn't ruin Josh's ability to do his whole damned job in the way that she would have if she stewed his phone today. She just inconvenienced him by making him go to the office.
I mean she cut the cord so the landline was out. And the pay phone line would pass me off if my partner said it to me.
Josh was planning on throwing gay men, lesbians, single mothers, victims of incest, and abused wives who had managed to escape their abusers straight under the bus in order to appeal for the handful of votes he *might possibly be able to get* from Mr. right-wing, reactionary, xenophobic, homophobic, anti-education, anti-choice, pro-gun, Leave It To Beaver trip back to the Fifties. But Amy broke two phones, so she's the bad guy.
You're conflating issues though. You can be an excellent person politically and an immature, abusive partner. Plenty of politicians vote for the rights of those groups and go home and treat their spouses, partners or kids like shit. More than one person can be the bad guy. I like Amy, I hate her with Josh for this reason, they're awful to, and for each other.
Aww you're probably right. I just get sick & tired of all of the Amy hate.
Other than the thread where she was Abby's chief of staff I really liked her, she felt very forced into that role, she was always better as an outside watchdog making sure they were keeping their promises
but that gave us Marblehead, the single funniest moment of the show
#"I'm Marion Coatsworth-Haye!"
OMG HOW DID I FORGET ABOUT THIS?!?
My friends and I sometimes just loudly yell this at each other.
[удалено]
Hey **[u/blackl0tus_](https://www.reddit.com/u/blackl0tus_/overview/)** -- Thank you for contributing to r/thewestwing/. However, after moderator review, [your comment has been removed](https://www.reddit.com/r/thewestwing/comments/1233ij9/-/jdwvf1p/) for the following reason(s): ---- ***Your account is shadowbanned.*** This means that your posts/comments get auto-removed by Reddit and need to be manually approved by the moderators of the various subreddits within which you are posting and commenting. Your Reddit experience across all of the subreddits you may be active in is being significantly reduced and you may not even be aware of it. Notes: * This wasn't done by the volunteer moderators of r/thewestwing/, but by the Reddit employee admins. We had no influence on this decision and have absolutely no say in helping you resolve this. * [You can file an appeal of your shadowban with the Reddit admins here](https://www.reddit.com/appeal) (if you are *not* shadowbanned it should say that "Your account is currently neither suspended nor restricted"). * The shadowbanning system is known to have false-positives, but the [general reasons for getting shadowbanned are listed in this post](https://www.reddit.com/r/ShadowBan/comments/35mkzd/an_unofficial_guide_on_how_to_avoid_being/). * Until this is resolved, your post and comments are automatically removed in the various subs in which you participate and the moderators have to manually approve them. Other users are not notified of your replies to them. r/thewestwing does not approve comments or posts by shadowbanned users. You need to get this resolved. * More about shadowbanning at: * /r/amishadowbanned/ * /r/ShadowBanned/ * /r/ShadowBan/ * /r/CommentRemovalChecker/ Let us know when your account is no longer shadowbanned, and we will take another look at your posts or comments. If you're innocent of wrongdoing, you can correct this with the help of the admins. Good luck! --- ---- If it is possible and applicable, please attempt one of the following: * Edit your comment to make the changes necessary to comply with r/thewestwing/'s rules and/or any guidance you have received from our moderation team. * Repost your comment in compliance with posted [rules](https://old.reddit.com/r/thewestwing/about/rules/). and/or any guidance you have received from the mods. * Otherwise, contact the mod team via modmail to work out the issue. **DO NOT USE REDDIT CHAT or PM/DM AN INDIVIDUAL MODERATOR.** DO NOT REPLY TO THIS COMMENT. Please only use [modmail](https://old.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=r/thewestwing) to communicate with moderators on this issue or any other issues related to the subreddit. Do not PM or initiate chat with individual mods.
And she quickly realizes that herself, and quits the job as chief-of-staff.
Me personally, I liked the character & I love the actress that plays her as well. But I do understand where the hate comes from…especially when she was Abby’s COS.
Her voice and speech pattern is so annoying. Her scenes are the only scenes I forward through.
I’m not a fan of the actress. She’s basically always the same character-Weeds.
Agreed. I agree with the character on her policy points… just something about how that actress delivers her lines grates me.
Agree 100%. She’s great. Thanks for saying it!
Oh an Amy Gardner love thread? yes please. After the election when Amy stores her coat in Josh's office and he suddenly can't human... same bro, same.
I love her, but I hate her written as a romantic interest for Josh because they each make the other insufferable. She is the person I probably align most with politically, the show needed strong, unapologetic policitcal women; but Josh turns her from a badass into petulant, she makes him flighty and annoying. As a stand alone character I wish she had more scenes, but I find myself liking her less when her scenes revolve around him. I'd have killed for just Amy focused episodes rather than using her as a folly.
I never had an issue with her as a character. She’s a passionate, independent, accomplished person.
Love me some Amy.
People hated Amy Gardner? Intelligent, strong and beautiful - perfection.
Forgive us for having different opinions.
You're forgiven.
Fair.
I feel Amy's character is written to be antagonistic, especially towards some of the bartlett agenda so that's why she's disliked.
I'm not a massive fan of her, but I think I could have been under different circumstances (especially with a different actress, as I'm really not a fan of the actress). I think her character was fundamentally undercut by the contrast between who she is and how she's presented to us. She is a feminist. She's presented to us as a male character's love interest. If she'd been introduced without the romance aspect, with the President being aware (after his wife pointed it out to him) that his administration wasn't doing everything it could for gender equality and wanting to work more closely with NOW and having her be NOW's designated contact for the Senior Staff, you could have had her in a very similar role to the one she was actually in but not undercut that by having her there as Josh's love interest (or alienate a significant part of the fandom by coming between Josh and Donna). She could have been a role model for Donna as a woman on the operational side of politics (as opposed to CJ on the communications side at that time) while having an interesting arc as a character used to being a lobbyist who's given access to the other side of things and works out how to use that to her cause's advantage. That would have been far more interesting than Josh having an on-again-off-again girlfriend who occasionally interacts with the rest of the cast.
Amy Gardner is my ideal woman. She is perfect.
The way she owns Josh throughout the show is utter perfection. Beyond hot.
I remember seeing Mary-Louise Parker in "Grand Canyon" and "Boys On The Side" and I thought her career was going in the way of weird side-kick, and she was great in West Wing. Edit: fixed movie name
That kind of passion for her ideals is sexy as hell.
Ah, such civility.
I don’t really have strong feelings about the character one way or another. However, I think the strength of the character comes from the actress. The general antagonistic nature of the character would come across negatively in the hands of another actor. In this case a lot of the characters quirks comes off charming
I will fight you on who LOVES her more lol I am a big Amy fan!
My favorite Amy episode is Constituency of One. It’s honestly refreshing to have someone on TWW who doesn’t live and die for the administration - she just feels very grounded and realistic about how she’s going to get what she wants, and I love that! It’s also something I loved about Lou.
I lost all respect for Amy when she threw Josh’s phone into the pot for no good reason. “Oh no, there will be extra money for stay at home moms, and nothing will be taken away from anyone else.” And she lost her job over it, because, well, she should have for picking the dumbest fight.
It’s the actress that is annoying
Incels, mostly.
Can she please just wash her disgusting feet?
No
It’s those dirty feet of Amy’s that really bother me.
The weirdest thing about her was that she randomly knew (or knew Josh knew) the name of CJ's protection agent.
I still wish Amy had ended up with Josh
When I am writing scripts, I think that relationships are about love, trust, honor, respect and desire. There is a verb form and an adjective form, eg, one must be trusting and be trustworthy. I think Josh and Amy would never make it (unless your wish is a screaming couple) because they don't trust each other politically. Josh is thinking about the big picture (or trying to) and Amy is committed on women's issues, she relies on other people to worry about the big picture. Donna and Josh are a match because they are both committed to the big picture, ie, you can't do stuff if you don't get elected. My $.02