Aaron Sorkin (Getty Images)

Reportedly, Aaron Sorkin researched his forthcoming HBO series about cable-news windbaggery, More As This Story Develops, by visiting the set of Chris Matthews's Hardball. However, plans for Mr. Matthews to visit Mr. Sorkin's set--and appear on-camera as a character in the Sorkin universe, one in which everyone talks quickly and has hidden pieties that are revealed with no lack of pomposity--have been scrapped by Matthews's bosses at MSNBC, reportedly. New York's Vulture blog reports that the content of the series ("egomaniacs working for wealthy drunks"!) may have been the issue for MSNBC, though perhaps the network types finally got around to watching Aaron Sorkin's Studio 60 and realized that if he can make comedians that obtuse and humorless, he could ruin Chris Matthews.

ddaddario@observer.com :: @DPD_

It was after 11 p.m. on Saturday, May 1, in the foyer of the Mayflower Hotel in Washington, D.C., where the incongruous combo of the chef Bobby Flay and CNN correspondent Wolf Blitzer were co-hosting a Capitol File after-party for the White House Correspondents Association Dinner. Mr. West was standing right where Kim Kardashian had fought her way through a clamoring mob a few minutes earlier, while her escort, Greta Van Susteren, played the patient handmaiden.

"This isn't about politics," said Hardball host Chris Matthews. "It's about the scene. Wherever you have a lot of people together at an event like this, good-looking people show up. And they just stand around. So you'll notice groups of good-looking people just standing around because they've heard there's a scene. And since they make it on looks, they must be seen."

All the pretty faces made the party planners nervous. Press people asked reporters not to bother the guests inside. Security was tight: Lists were dutifully double-checked; IDs were required.

In the ballroom, Mr. West sauntered along behind two of his co-stars-Michael K. Williams (the scar-faced bandit Omar) and Sonja Sohn (Kima, the tough lesbian cop)-who were holding hands (unromantically) and making a beeline for a back staircase, where a beefy security guard protected the entrance to a VIP balcony.

Mr. Williams whispered in the guard's ear, but nothing happened. The group stepped aside while others were let up. Mr. Williams patted his brow with a cloth, and tried again. Ms. Sohn sat down on a ledge.

Desiree Rogers-the former social secretary blamed for letting the infamous gatecrashers past White House security-floated down the stairs in a red dress, followed by a waiter with a big tray.

Mr. Williams tried again, but the security guard was unmoved, and the group finally trudged off. (They would go on to surface at the glitzier Vanity Fair party later in the night.)

Famously subject to an Anna Wintour intervention a half-decade ago when his weight passed 300 pounds (is that three Annas, or four?), Mr. Talley is optimistic about the size revolution to which the fashion industry seems to be warming. "I think 'plus-size' is fine; I don't think it's a derogatory term at all. I think 'plus-a-size' would even be better," he said. "Gabby [Sidibe]'s on the covers of magazines-what a wonderful thing that is for a 'plus-a' girl. ... Let's just coin that tonight. 'Plus-a.'"

Mr. Talley, who is six and a half feet tall, cut quite a figure at the Plaza's Grand Ballroom: He wore a floor-length Chado Ralph Rucci coat silk-screened with photos of the late Pina Bausch's ballet company, along with a crystal-studded N.A.A.C.P. T-shirt and the largest pair of Roger Vivier buckle flats the Transom has ever seen.

Despite all this, he didn't quite steal the show-that honor went to Junior League vice chair Kathryn Chalmers, who wore a breathtaking Alexander McQueen gown with an impressive train. Ms. Chalmers said she considered the event "an appropriate time to celebrate the irreplaceable designer," though she'd bought the dress from Gilt Groupe (where she also works) months ago.

"Make them filibuster. Make Joe Lieberman stand on the floor, and for hour after hour after hour, explain to the American people why he's against the public option, why he's against his own position on expanding Medicare," Mr. Weiner told Chris Matthews. "Let's make some of these guys go out there and actually filibuster and watch how their support erodes in their home constituency."

Mr. Matthews scoffed when Mr. Weiner trotted out a familiar refrain of the bill's liberal backers: "Don't let the perfect be the enemy good." The host said he often used the line on his own wife.

"The problem is that you ain't perfect or all that good," the congressman replied.

Anthony Weiner, ladies and gentlemen.

"By the way, congratulations on Mark Leibovich's piece," Mr. Matthews said to Ms. Abramson, referring to a feature in yesterday's Times about the last days of Mr. Kennedy's life.

Some sixteen months earlier, the author of said feature, Mark Leibovich, had profiled Mr. Matthews for the Times magazine. It wasn't pretty.

A year-and-a-half later, Mr. Matthews appeared almost ready to forgive the Times author. Almost.

"[Leibovich] saved his generosity over a lifetime, he saved that generosity for this piece," said Mr. Matthews on Thursday morning. "Don't you think he rationed it well?"

Joe Scarborough, the host, burst into laughter: "Oh, Matthews! Are you suggesting he didn't ration it for your piece?"

Everyone smiled.

Ms. Abramson, perhaps not fully clued into the joke, kept praising Mr. Leibovich.

"I'm sure Leibovich is very pleased," said Mr. Scarborough.

Last year, Mr. Leibovich began his profile of Mr. Matthews thusly:  "Whenever Chris Matthews says something he likes, which happens a lot, he repeats it often and at volumes suggesting a speaker who feels insufficiently listened to at times."

And sure enough, before Morning Joe cut to a commercial break, Mr. Matthews tried out his punch line about Mr. Leibowich one more time.

 "He did save all that generosity and...gave it to Teddy," said Mr. Matthews, grinning.

(One of ten trillion examples: "This is bigger than Kennedy," Mr. Matthews said of Barack Obama's candidacy last year in an interview with The Observer on Super Tuesday.)

So perhaps it's no surprise that later this month, Mr. Matthews will return to the subject of the Kennedy legacy in an in-depth, hour-long documentary for MSNBC, called The Kennedy Brothers.

According to today's press release, while reporting the documentary, Mr. Matthews sat down with a number of "key Kennedy insiders, including Kathleen Kennedy Townsend, Frank Mankiewicz, biographer Peter Canellos, and presidential historian Doris Kearns Goodwin," in order to deconstruct "the myth and legend surrounding this quintessential American family." The documentary will air on MSNBC during the 7 p.m. Hardball time slot on Thursday, Aug. 27.

More from the release:

The Kennedy Brothers documentary delves deeply into the family’s saga and seeks to discover why we as a nation not only embrace the family legend, but seem to have a desire to make their story our story.  It takes viewers behind the Kennedy legacy, exposing the family’s scandals, personal recklessness, and dashed hopes. The program’s insider access helps us come to terms with what this family has meant for American history—and what its absence will mean for America's future.

An 11-year-old kid from Florida named Damon Weaver scored a sit down interview with President Obama.

CBS' James Brown interviewed Michael Vick for 60 Minutes.

The Observer's very own Steve Kornacki mixed it up on CNN with a volatile Lou Dobbs.

Fox News' Griff Jenkins waded into a town hall meeting in Maryland and found some fired-up interview subjects.

And Chris Matthews unloaded on the health care protester who showed up at a presidential appearance brandishing a gun: "Why did you bring a loaded gun to a public meeting?" said Mr. Matthews. "I know the law. You can chew gum in church. You can ride in on a pogo stick, there are a lot of things you are legally allowed to do. Why did you bring a gun to a meeting with the President of the United States, given the violent history of this country with regard to presidents and assassinations?"

And that's just what Specter's critics, on the right, on the left, and in the middle, have been doing this week.

"Self-preservation in the first order" and "a cold, crass political calculation" is how G.O.P. chairman Michael Steele described Specter's switch, while Joe Sestak, a Pennsylvania Democrat who is threatening to challenge Specter in next year's primary, pointedly asked, "Is that the type of individual we want?"

On The Daily Show, Jon Stewart rolled tape of Specter's press conference earlier that day, at which the senator bluntly stated: "The prospects for winning the Republican primary are bleak. I am not prepared to have my 29-year record in the United States Senate decided by the Pennsylvania Republican primary electorate."

"How refreshing is that?" Stewart asked sarcastically, before impersonating Specter's voice and saying: "I just want to be clear: Principle played no part in this decision. This was politics. I like my job."

The irony, though, is this: Specter's defection, while immediately necessitated by self-preservation, was a direct result of his willingness to take principled stands.

What Specter's critics, perhaps intentionally in some cases, are failing to take into account is why his political career reached the point it did this week, when jumping to the Democrats emerged as his only realistic means to survive. (A G.O.P. primary poll taken days before Specter made his switch showed Pat Toomey, who came within two points of knocking Specter off in the 2004 Republican primary, ahead by a staggering 21 points—about as bad as it can possibly get for an incumbent senator in a primary.) The reason, of course, is because he's put principle above partisan politics more often—and on more consequential votes—than just about any senator in recent history.

For instance, he played a crucial role 22 years ago in defeating Ronald Reagan's nomination of Robert Bork for the Supreme Court. When Reagan announced his choice of Bork, a circuit court judge who had long been admired by the right (and feared by the left), in July 1987, it marked an effort not just to place an outspoken conservative on the court, but also to reignite the Reagan revolution itself, which had run out of steam in the wake of the Iran-Contra scandal and the Democrats' success in the 1986 midterm elections.

Bork's opponents were in a tough spot, though. His writings had been radical, but his resume and legal credentials—to say nothing of his intellect—were impeccable, and there was no modern precedent for denying confirmation to a Supreme Court nominee on purely ideological grounds. Specter, a former prosecutor, used his perch on the Judiciary Committee to question Bork for hours in hearings that received extensive national coverage.

Viewers may not have understood the nuances of this grilling—Specter quizzed Bork about "original intent," "Madisonian majoritarianism," and Oliver Wendell Holmes' "clear and present danger" free-speech standard—but when Specter concluded by announcing that he couldn't support Bork, it gave considerable cover to other wavering senators to join him, which they did: Bork's nomination was defeated, 58 to 42. And the Reagan revolution never really recovered.

Conservatives, of course, were furious. Robert Walker, a devoutly conservative Pennsylvania congressman, called Specter's Bork vote "a Panama Canal kind of issue," a comparison to the late '70s treaty that cost several Republicans their careers. But Specter survived the Republican primary when he ran again in 1992, defeating a conservative state representative by 30 points.

The Bork battle stands as one of Specter's most visible and consequential breaks from the G.O.P. line, but it was hardly the first or only example. Two years before Bork, he'd announced his opposition to Reagan's MX missile program, once again enraging the hawkish, Reagan-loving right. In response, the White House threatened to cut off all national Republican money from Specter's 1986 reelection campaign.

He's always been pro-choice, even mounting a presidential campaign in 1996 in which he pitched himself as a vehicle for cultural moderates who were fed up with the religious right. He raised no money, received scant media coverage—and was showered with boos by G.O.P. audiences whenever he made his case. It was a futile campaign, but one that was, however disastrously, about principle.

And, of course, there was this year's vote on the stimulus bill. The entire Republican establishment and every conservative activist group turned opposition into an article faith, treating the issue as a debate over the future of capitalism, freedom and democracy. When the bill reached the Senate, Specter knew he could have simply joined that chorus and saved his career. At the time, Toomey was publicly saying that he wouldn't run. Conservatives, it was clear, were likely to give Specter a pass in the 2010 primary—however grudgingly—if he would play ball with them on opposing Barack Obama's agenda.

And yet Specter negotiated some changes and then voted for the bill. Conservatives called him a traitor (and worse) and, within days, Toomey was in the race—and pulling away in the polls. In raw political terms, Specter's decision was an act of career suicide: Isn't that the very definition of principle?

For some odd reason, Chris Matthews (who earlier this year flirted with challenging Specter in Pennsylvania in 2010) went on MSNBC on Tuesday night and did his best to move the Specter-is-unprincipled ball down the field. In an embarrassingly self-flattering rant in which he patted himself on the back for refusing to "eat it" by signing on to one party's complete agenda, Matthews said that Specter is "the opposite of Edmund Burke—he doesn't stand for the people, he goes with the flow."

Pennsylvanians, Matthews predicted, will see in Specter a man "who was loyal to a political party for a half a century that gave him elective office time after time after time ... and then just like that when he sees a better opportunity, he splits to the other side. You've got to wonder about a guy's character who does that!"

Was Matthews not watching these past three decades, when Specter, time and again, was brazenly disloyal to the G.O.P. and voted his conscience instead? Does he not understand that the only reason Specter now sees "a better opportunity" in the Democratic Party is because he has voted with that party—and against the Republicans—on so many critical issues?

Sure, Specter is trying to save his career. But the only reason his career was in such danger is that, apparently, there's no room in his old party anymore for a principled moderate.

One possible partner? American University.

The longtime home of NBC News, MSNBC, and WRC-TV Channel 4—NBC’s owned and operated station in D.C.—is located on Nebraska Avenue, a short walk from the university’s bucolic campus in Northwest Washington.

What American University would do with space in the building remains unclear. But the university’s School of Communication, which offers graduate and undergraduate degrees to hundreds of students, is currently undergoing a $20 million renovation that will eventually modernize and expand its journalism facilities. In the meantime, the school remains under construction.

If the two institutions strike an agreement, NBC is expected to maintain much of the ample space at its sprawling compound. And, presumably, bringing in a roommate would help NBC pay for some of the much-needed upgrades on a facility that predates HD technology by many, many decades.

Earlier this year, a number of employees at the bureau accepted buyout offers from NBC. As a result, the overall size of the staff working out of the D.C. offices has dwindled, freeing up even more room in a building that was never particularly cramped to begin with.

NBC News is not alone is reconsidering its physical footprint in Washington. In recent years, ABC News has significantly reduced the size of its Washington bureau on DeSales Street NW transfering the bulk of its Nightline staff up to New York City and moving This Week with George Stephanopoulos into a studio at the Newseum.

Sources say that efforts have already begun within NBC's three-story building to consolidate the network's operations there—which in addition to studios for
The Chris Matthews Show and Meet the Press also houses the studio, transmitter, and newsroom for WRC-TV.

Recently, WRC-TV (which technically owns the building) began work on modernizing its facilities there. Management recently told the local NBC staffers that the corporate executives were considering various options for the future of the building, ranging from a possible sale to the leasing out of space.

"We're always interested in exploring options to improve our facilities, not only in Washington DC, but also across the country and around the globe," said an NBC corporate spokesperson in a statement to The Observer. "However, at this point, there is nothing to announce."