The Political Chase

Morris and McGann’s ‘unattractive’ analysis of Clinton

I rarely visit FOX News site, but when I saw this headline, "Why are the Wheels Coming Off the Clinton Bandwagon?" in Google News, I had to check it out.  Of course, I wasn’t expecting to find and an article that might be used in a class at Columbia University School of Journalism, and I didn’t. I found an article by Dick Morris and Eileen McGann that was more suited for the a site like omg!, rather than one indicative of a "News" organization.

The world-renowned Morris and McGann produced a dissembling personal attack on Clinton rather than an issue and fact-based analysis and conclusions. In fact, they did not even bother to include substance to support the personal attack. They simply stuck their tongue out at Hillary Clinton and said we don’t like you and you’re ugly too. However, they expressed it in a slightly more mature manner: ""the conclusion is inescapable: the more voters come to know Hillary Clinton the less they like her and the more they get to know Barack Obama the more they like him."

The entire argument presented by these anal-retentive, highly skilled and educated Political Scientists was contained to a single paragraph. I suppose they found a way to use WinZip on their research paper.

Obviously, New Hampshire and Iowa are markedly different states with little in common demographically. But, what they do have in common is prolonged exposure to the candidates and to their paid media advertising. These two states have been through what we will all go through before Election Day. They have seen Hillary and Obama campaign day after day. They have watched the candidates — with the advertisements on television, heard them on radio and have focused on the more intensive news coverage they are receiving in the local media. The conclusion is inescapable: the more voters come to know Hillary Clinton the less they like her and the more they get to know Barack Obama the more they like him.

After stating the introduction, discussion of facts, and conclusion, — nicely compressed to one paragraph — the Political Scientists introduced another thesis, an abstract-to-concrete analysis of Hillary’s physical characteristics. At best, it is repugnant.

In the abstract, Hillary is a captivating idea. The first woman to run for president, she is the living reminder of the better economic times and international peace of the Clinton administration. But, up close and personal, she is far less attractive. As the rest of the country is exposed to the former first lady, if they emulate the voters in Iowa and New Hampshire and revise their opinion of her, the results will not please the Clinton camp.

Morris and McGann blatantly do not apply "attractive" in an appropriate context whereby attractive would be understood as having the power to attract. Instead, they couch "attractive" with "up close and personal," which is a precise sequitur to "pleasing to the eye or mind" and is the only remaining alternative to the former interpretation or definition of attractive stated previously.

So, for the sake of debate, let’s give Morris and McGann a little latitude. I can be just as absurd in my analysis as they can.

Morris and McGann are married, therefore, when asking questions about one or both of them relative to others, George Clooney for example,, it would not be inappropriate to include the spouse or significant other of the person that is being reviewed or analyzed.

Take your time and carefully review the following people, then answer the questions after the images.

Dick Morris	Eileen McGann
Sarah Larson and George Clooney
Bill and Hillary Clinton

1. If you had the opportunity to get more "up close and personal" with any of the above, who would find to be more attractive? The least attractive?
2. Who would you prefer to have "prolonged exposure"with?
3. Which of the above would you vote to be the next President of the United States?
4. Who would you prefer to have a beer with?
5. Who would you prefer to be your accountant or walk your dog?

To ensure objectivity and high journalistic standards, we’ll send the results to Dana Milbank and let him produce a report.

There’s little doubt that I have been pretty critical of Hillary Clinton the past few weeks, but the criticism was based on issues, actions, and known quantities. Not on how "up close and personal" I may have been (or not), nor based on duration of "exposure."

Mukasey Rebukes Congress on Investigation

Hey, Chuck Schumer and Dianne Feinstein — both of you did a heckuva job!

Has Mukasey forgotten that investigating the Executive Branch is a function of Congress or did George Bush write an Executive Order stripping Congress of its subpoena power?

Attorney General Michael B. Mukasey today sharply rebuffed congressional demands for details about the Justice Department’s inquiry into the destruction of CIA interrogation tapes, saying that providing such information would make it appear that the department was "subject to political influence."

In letters to the leaders of the Senate Judiciary Committee and others, Mukasey also reiterated his opposition to appointing a special prosecutor to the tapes investigation, saying he was "aware of no facts at present" that would require such a step.

"At my confirmation hearing, I testified that I would act independently, resist political pressure and ensure that politics plays no role in cases brought by the Department of Justice," Mukasey wrote. "Consistent with that testimony, the facts will be followed wherever they lead in this inquiry, and the relevant law applied."

Next ABA Journal Lawyer of the Year - Michael Mukasey.

Bush on steroids

President Bush will not comment on any investigation of the administration but he’s eager to comment on investigations that are not about the administration. Moreover, he banned any characterization “of his reactions” by administration officials.  But he’s the president, so its fine for him to chime in on the Mitchell Report — an extensive investigation of steroid abuse in professional baseball.

When asked by reporters today what “his reaction was” to the Mitchell Report, the president said, “steroids have sullied the game.”

Not every player in baseball was included in the report, but the president has determined the entire game is now tainted. Given this administration’s record, if the reverse were applied, the president and his compadres would have been frog-marched from the White House a long time ago.

So what gives Bush the right to publicly give his reaction on an investigation when he refuses to expose himself to the same questions and criticism.

Watch it:

Transcript:

JEANNIE OHM (MSNBC): He was asked for the first time what his reaction was to that 400+ page Mitchell Report. And he says he loves baseball. And he was asked specifically though, should the players named in that report be punished. And here was the president’s response.

PRESIDENT BUSH: Like many fans, I’ve been troubled by the, uh, steroid allegations. Uh, I think it’s best that all of us not jump to any conclusions on individual players’ names, but we can jump to this conclusion — that steroids have sullied the game — and players and owners, uh, must take, uh, the, ah, Mitchell Report seriously. I’m confident they will.

JEANNIE OHM (MSNBC): And the president added that he hopes that this report helps put an end to what he called the “steroid era of baseball.”

The rise and fall of presidential candidates

(Update below)

These are recent polls for the Democratic presidential candidates in Iowa, New Hampshire and South Carolina. Green indicates the leader for for a given poll, however some are so close (e.g. NH Research 2000 12/12) and/or within a statistical dead heat due to the margins of error.

IOWA DEMOCRATIC PRESIDENTIAL

Iowa is just too close to make any worthwile observations. (See important update below)

NEW HAMPSHIRE DEMOCRATIC

In New Hampshire, one might could say Clinton is falling rather than Obama is rising, however he took a big jump between 12/1 and 12/11 — right after Obama took the lead in Iowa, and precisely when Clinton began her mudslinging. So, at face value it’s hard to say whether Obama’s strategy is working or Hillary’s strategy is failing.

SOUTH CAROLINA DEMOCRATIC

In South Carolina, the lead has bounced around a bit over the past two weeks, but I don’t think that says anything specific about any candidate. Notice the big jumps in the most recent polls when a candidate moved ahead or the dates are the same but different polls. For example, on 12/9 Survey USA has Clinton at 44 and Insider Advantage puts her at 22.

Bottom line - I don’t think changes in Iowa and New Hampshire’s polls have had an influence over SC yet, but I would not be surprised to see that change next. Moreover, Obama got a lot of media exposure in SC at Oprahpalloza, which is not reflected in these polls.

Soure: 

Update:  According to the latest Research 2000 poll (12/13) Barack Obama has a 9-point lead in Iowa. The poll places Obama at first with 33 percent followed by John Edwards and Hillary Clinton, who 24 percent each. There are only three weeks remaining until the Iowa caucuses. I have provided an updated chart for Iowa reflecting the new data.

IOWA DEMOCRATIC

Busy week for presidential candidates

There has been a lot of activity and changes for the presidential candidates this week. Both parties held presidential debates in Iowa. Mike Huckabee surged in state and national polls, but is under fire due to recent comments and increased scrutiny of his record. Religion is at the forefront of the GOP race and Rudy is rapidly moving to the background. The Clinton camp escalated its incredulous mudslinging, however if recent polls are any indication, she is paying a heavy price for the nastygrams.*

The Des Moines Register and Iowa Public Television held debates for GOP and Democratic presidential candidates. I have not had an opportunity to watch the debates yet but here’s what a few others are saying.

Democratic Debate

David Yepsen, the Des Moines Register’s political columnist, awarded the debate to "the second-tier candidates, especially Joe Biden."

"Biden, Chris Dodd and Bill Richardson turned in some of their best debate performances of the 2008 campaign and were the day’s biggest gainers. Biden’s showing was the best of the day."

As for the the top-tier candidates (Obama, Edwards, Clinton), Yeltsin says, "[they] all had excellent afternoons. But nothing happened to knock Obama off his stride. Since he leads in the polls in Iowa, the event still leaves him ahead in the contest."

Yeltsin was particularly impressed with Biden, and is consistent with several comments I heard on some of the cable news shows.

As for Biden, how can you lose when everybody else on the stage is praising your record on civil rights, literally applauds you, and the front-runner offers testimony on your behalf? You can’t. And unlike some of his past debate performances in which he seemed strident or comical, Biden was cool, commanding and presidential in this one.

I thought Barack Obama’s response to a question about having several former Clinton administration officials on his staff was the best line of this debate as well as many others.

MODERATOR: Thank you.

Senator Obama, you have Bill Clinton’s former national security adviser, State Department policy director, and Navy Secretary, among others advising you. With relatively little foreign policy experience of your own, how will you rely on so many Clinton advisers and still deliver the kind of break from the past that you’re promising voters?

OBAMA: Well, the –

CLINTON: [Cackle] I want to hear that!

OBAMA: Well, Hillary, I’m looking forward to you advising me, as well. I want gather up talent from everywhere.

Republican Debate

I watched about the last third of this debate and if that was representative of the whole, it was a joke. Fred Thompson bullied the moderator when he refused to respond to a "raise your hand question." And Rudy Giuliani’s response to questions about Driving Miss Judy was fitting for a Saturday Night Live skit. 

In a round of questions intended to focus on character and leadership, the moderator questioned Giuliani about transparency (viz. Rudy spreading security expenses in the most unlikely budget categories), and he said it was intentionally done to facilitate Freedom of Information Acts. It’s been a long time since I laughed so hard.

MODERATOR: So are there things you could have done in this situation that would have been more open and not raise these concerns about obscuring public –

GIULIANI: No, the reality is that this was a bookkeeping practice.

The way it was done actually made it more available to Freedom of Information Act requests. Had it been done in the police department, nobody would have ever found it. And everything that was laid out a few weeks ago had been laid out six years ago, very well known.

* Brief poll update to follow soon.