Television has a funny way of burying its best work. In 2003, NBC took a massive gamble on a show called Mr. Sterling, a political drama that didn't just want to entertain; it wanted to expose the gears of the United States Senate. It was smart. It was dense. And then, after only ten episodes, it was gone.
Josh Brolin played William Sterling Jr., an idealistic young man appointed to fill his late father’s seat in the Senate. If that sounds like Mr. Smith Goes to Washington, you're not entirely wrong. But while Jimmy Stewart’s version was full of wide-eyed innocence, Bill Sterling’s world was grey, gritty, and deeply frustrating. The show arrived right before the peak of "Prestige TV," landing in that awkward gap between The West Wing and the cynical bite of House of Cards.
Honestly, it deserved better.
What Made the Mr. Sterling TV Series Different
Most political shows love the "Walk and Talk." They love the high-stakes speeches. Mr. Sterling loved the committee rooms. It was obsessed with the actual, boring, soul-crushing process of how a bill becomes a law. Or, more accurately, how a bill gets gutted by a hundred tiny compromises.
The show was created by Lawrence O'Donnell. If that name sounds familiar, it's because he’s a staple on MSNBC. Before he was a cable news host, he was a Senior Advisor to Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan. He wasn't guessing what the Senate looked like. He lived it. He knew the smell of the hallways and the exact way a staffer whispers in a Senator's ear to prevent a PR disaster.
This authenticity was its greatest strength and, ironically, its commercial weakness.
While The West Wing was busy being an aspirational fantasy where everyone was the smartest person in the room, Mr. Sterling was about the guy who wasn't sure he belonged. Bill Sterling was an Independent. Not a Democrat, not a Republican. That choice by the writers was brilliant. It meant he had no natural allies. Every single vote he cast was a battle. He was constantly being squeezed by the California Governor—played with a wonderful, oily charisma by Harris Yulin—and the party leadership.
👉 See also: The Real Story Behind I Can Do Bad All by Myself: From Stage to Screen
A Cast That Actually Clicked
You've got to look at this cast list to believe it. Before he was Thanos or an Oscar nominee, Josh Brolin was carrying this show on his back. He played Sterling with a mix of ruggedness and genuine intellectual curiosity. He didn't look like a politician; he looked like a guy who’d rather be hiking in the Sierras than wearing a suit in 90% humidity.
Then you had Audra McDonald as Jackie Brock. She was the Chief of Staff, and she was the real brain of the operation. Her performance was a masterclass in controlled competence. William Russ, whom most people know as the dad from Boy Meets World, played Tommy Doyle, the veteran staffer who knew where all the bodies were buried.
The chemistry wasn't flashy. It was professional.
It felt like a real office where people actually worked 14-hour days and drank too much coffee. They weren't constantly quipping. They were tired.
Why the Ratings Faltered
NBC put Mr. Sterling on Friday nights. That’s usually where shows go to die. It was the "death slot."
The audience for a dense, process-heavy political drama isn't exactly hanging out at home on a Friday at 8:00 PM. But beyond the scheduling, the show was arguably too cynical for 2003. We were in the early years of the Iraq War. The country was polarized, but television still preferred its leaders to be heroes. Sterling wasn't a superhero. He was a guy trying to fix a broken system from the inside and failing more often than he succeeded.
✨ Don't miss: Love Island UK Who Is Still Together: The Reality of Romance After the Villa
People often compare it to The West Wing, but that's a mistake. Aaron Sorkin’s world was about what we hope politics is. Lawrence O'Donnell’s world was about what politics is.
In one episode, the plot revolves entirely around the minutiae of a prison reform bill. It’s not "exciting" in the traditional sense. There are no explosions. There’s no secret affair in the coat closet. There is just a group of people arguing over whether a specific clause will alienate voters in a specific district.
It was brilliant television that demanded you pay attention.
The Lost Episodes and the Legacy
Only nine episodes actually aired during the initial run. A tenth was produced but held back. In the age of streaming, a show like this would have been a cult hit on Netflix or HBO. It would have had ten seasons and a dedicated subreddit. In 2003, if you didn't hit the Nielsens, you were toast.
What’s fascinating is how much the show predicted our current political stalemate. The "Independent" angle feels more relevant today than ever. Sterling’s refusal to play the party game is exactly what voters claim they want, yet the show illustrates exactly why the system makes that almost impossible.
It also touched on:
🔗 Read more: Gwendoline Butler Dead in a Row: Why This 1957 Mystery Still Packs a Punch
- The influence of lobbyists in a way that didn't feel like a cartoon.
- The crushing weight of a family legacy.
- The way the media cycle can destroy a policy before it’s even written.
James Whitmore, playing the elder Sterling in flashbacks and spirit, provided a weight to the show. The relationship between the dead father’s shadow and the son’s ambition was the emotional core. It wasn't just about politics; it was about a son trying to figure out if his father was a great man or just a powerful one.
Is it worth watching now?
If you can find it. Because of music licensing and various rights issues, Mr. Sterling hasn't had a major DVD release or a consistent home on streaming services. It’s one of those "lost" shows of the early 2000s.
If you stumble upon old recordings or a rare digital archive, grab it.
It’s a time capsule of a specific moment in American history. It captures the transition from the 20th-century style of legislating to the hyper-partisan 21st-century reality. Plus, seeing Josh Brolin hone the intensity he’d later use in No Country for Old Men is worth the price of admission alone.
The show didn't have a "grand finale." It just stopped.
That feels oddly appropriate for a show about the U.S. Senate. Nothing ever really ends there; it just goes into recess.
Actionable Insights for Political Drama Fans
If you're looking to dive into the world of Mr. Sterling or similar deep-dive political media, here is how to get the most out of the experience:
- Track Down the "Lost" Creators: If you like the writing style of the show, look into Lawrence O'Donnell’s book Deadly Force. It carries that same sense of procedural realism and ethical complexity.
- Compare the "Independent" Narrative: Watch Mr. Sterling alongside the first season of The West Wing. Notice the difference in how they treat the "Other Side." Sterling treats his opponents as people with conflicting interests, not necessarily as villains.
- Study the Supporting Cast: Many of the actors who played minor staffers or opposing Senators in this show went on to become staples in prestige dramas like The Wire and Mad Men. It was a scouting ground for high-level character actors.
- Look for the Unofficial Successors: If you can't find the episodes, shows like The Diplomat or Borgen (Denmark) carry the torch of "process-heavy" political drama that Mr. Sterling lit back in 2003.
The Mr. Sterling TV series might be a footnote in NBC's history, but for anyone who actually cares about how power works, it remains a gold standard. It didn't treat its audience like idiots. That’s a rare thing in any era of television.