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."