Hmmm... kinda like Al Gore and "Move On dot org" jumping on "The Day After Tomorrow" as a realistic look at global warming? (that realistic look was given to the author by aliens, his words, not mine) Once the movie was denounced by Climatologists they changed their collective tunes.

As for Michael Moore... what a pathetic windbag. A pontificating pile of fesces given to expressing his opinions as if they were fact!

Everybody knows Moore is a blue-collar guy from Flint, Mich., right? That's how he always sells himself.

In reality, he was born and raised in the wealthy, lily-white town of Davison, Mich. No wonder the clown prince of self-loathing developed such a complex about hating rich, stupid, white males.

In a letter to Roger Ebert of the Chicago Sun-Times last year, Moore still listed his town as Flint. In fact, despite his proclamations that "capitalism is a sin" and "an evil system," he lives in a $1.9 million apartment in Manhattan and enjoys a $1.2 million summer home on Torch Lake in Michigan.

No more pathetic than all the buzz (among Democrats!) that John McCain was going to be Kerry's running mate.

I mean, how bad is it, when the best buzz you can generate is that you can't find a member of your own party to be the #2 guy on your ticket?!?

look guys, both parties are so pathetic, its not worth getting too worked up over. this is a movie.

let's try and focus on real policy analysis and discuss differences there, shall we? wouldn't that be nice for a change?

"both parties are so pathetic"

Ah!! The whine of someone who knows he supporting a bunch of pathetic losers, but doesn't have the courage of his convictions to find someone to replace them. Until the Dems show a willingness to start purging their ranks of the likes of Byrd, Kennedy (all of them), Schumer, Leahy, Gore and all the other Michael Moore supporters, stop insulting our intellegence with that relativism drivel.

Then you just might get that policy discussion you claim you want. (But based on the Dems actions, such a policy discussion is the last thing they want.)

Instead of getting money out of politics, campaign finance reform forces parties to engage in unofficial campaigning such as this movie.

The Democrats probably figure that they have the sympathies of most of the news media and hollywood, and thus see this as advantageous.

Rather difficult to have a sane policy discussion with a party whose leaders casually throw around words like "brownshirts" (Al Gore) and "Taliban" (Julian Bond) to describe those with whom they have policy disagreements.

matt-that's a fair point. but what of the problems of having a sane policy discussion with individuals who compare others to gobbels (bill o'reilly) or leni reifenstahl (sp?). or allege that folks who dissent from the war are aiding and abetting terrorists? those types of criticisms are not the monopoly of either party/side of the debate.

michael moore is doing what many of us, media, weblogs etc. do--assert opinion as fact. he comes from a certain political perspective. to go from critiquing the work, to attacking the individual is a common practice (its far easier to dismiss someone as a nut than it is to take the time to debunk their message).

the fact that moore generates such a large audience for his message indicates to me that many people are dissatisfied with the pablum they get from the traditional media. the fact that many people lack the intellectual capacity to meaningfully critique moore's message suggests to me that many people are: 1) apathetic; 2) didn't take those book reports in high school seriously enough.

what's really funny is that many of the critiques of moore's newest film (and even clinton's book) are coming from people that haven't yet seen (or read) it; that is--they are attacking the person, not the work product. so be it--it just lacks a certain gravitas.

shark's comments that the dems appear pathetic for not running on their own platform has some merit in my mind. but what's more telling to me is that: 1) bush's poll numbers are falling by virtue of his own record; 2) bush is running more negative ads re kerry than kerry is running vs bush; and 3) people right now view kerry not on his own merits but rather as an alternative to bush.

see www.johnkerryisadouchebagbutimvotingforhimanyway.com

so as far as appearances go, this administration seems rather pathetic in its attempt to smear the opposing candidate and avoid its own record.

ah yes "you don't have to love him, you just have to get in line" (Senatrix H Clintoon). how does it feel to be a sheep dinesh? baaa baaaa.

can anyone point out ONE piece of important legislature that Kerry authored in his 20 or so years of sucking on the federal teet?