Yes Scott, it would not have mattered to the plot what pollitical party Morris was runnning for. So what I was distracted by, was Clooney's politics being blatantly included, when we both just agreed that they had nothing to do with the story.

Which party Morris was a member of wouldn't have changed the plot, but he did have to be a member of one of them, so there's nothing wrong with him being a liberal and since Clooney was playing him, it's only natural that he was a liberal and as a liberal, it's only natural he espoused liberal dogma.

Would the plot had suffered at all, had those speechs not been included?

Yes, the plot would have suffered if we never saw Morris making any speeches. We needed to see that he was a politician with strong beliefs.

Every politician has strong beliefs. It goes without saying.

You needed to see he was a politician with strong beliefs who wasn't afraid to stand up for them and not compromise them when challenged just to get elected.

The speeches are less than 10 minutes of the movie for god's sake and if he had made this morally corrupt guy a conservative he would have taken even more flak for it.

Patrick, I should have said, "is represented as a clean and honorable politician at the beginning of the story or on the surface of it."

Patrick, you wrote that clearly George Clooney cannot win with me. Well clearly I cannot win with you, who complained that I should only mention politics in my review if the movie does. Well here it is and you are still complaining. Clooney played a democrat not so as to seem unbiased. My point was that he chose to make his character a liberal because that gave him the chance to spout his politics on a world stage through the script that he wrote.

Patrick, the sound bites and speeches we hear Morris give are merely 10 minutes for God's sake, and do not play into the plot at all, yet Clooney chose to include them.

If Clooney had chosen to play a liberal simply because he wanted to spout off about his politics as you ASSUME he did then it seems to me that he would have included much more pontificating than the tiny bit that is in the movie. And why would he make this character such a slimeball that no one will like by the end of the movie if he was trying to merely push his liberal beliefs? Now I know that you always have to have the last word in these discussions so have at it. I'm done.

If you were done you would not have wrote that last paragraph. Quit trying to sound so superior. He included enough of what he wanted to put out there. Any more pontificating and people like you could no longer argue that it was for the sake of the movie or character.

He was playing a liberal politician in a movie. Politicians make political speeches. Yes, I'm sure that Clooney enjoyed writing those speeches and saying them, but that doesn't mean they were out of place in the context of the movie. If Kelsey Grammer were playing a conservative president in a movie and made a few sound bite speeches expressing conservative values then you wouldn't have complained about them.

I never "complained" because Clooney included liberal dogma. I merely pointed out that he made a point to do so, even though he smugly announced he was playing a liberal to not seem biased. I was complaining that he is a hypocrite.

"smugly"? That's your interpretation of why he did it. How do you know he didn't play a liberal for the reason he said?

It was smug of him to say he was not being biased. That implies that he wants to be perceived a certain way. Then he did the opposite of what he said he was going for. He is a smug hypocrite.

He meant that if he had made his candidate a conservative one that when it turned out that he wasn't the honorable, clean candidate that he is first portrayed as, that people like you would have said that Clooney is having a go at the conservatives. That makes him neither smug nor a hypocrite.

Wrong again. If he made the character a republican but still made pro conservative speeches as he makes liberal ones, I would have not at all been bothered by the characters affair.

How can I be wrong, when I'm repeating what Clooney himself said in interviews? You're the one who thinks they know the secret reasons why Clooney did what what he did. I'm going by what he said and you're saying that apparently you can read his mind and know the secret reasons why made the character a liberal.

And you are acting as if you can read mine.