Gawker
Roly-poly propagandist Michael Moore wrote to his email listserve acolytes that, sadly, he would not be brainwashing them into supporting the candidate of his capricious choice in Iowa tomorrow. Because he's not endorsing any of them! That's the short answer. The long answer is that he's not endorsing any of them but super especially not endorsing Hillary Clinton. Because of Iraq, sure, and also maybe kinda because she was the only one who refused to sit down with him for a Rolling Stone interview two months ago, thus killing his piece. So: anyone but Hillary! Do it for Uncle Mike! [Drudge, letter posted below the jump because his link will last another hour or so]
MICHAEL MOORE ON THE FENCE: 'I am not endorsing anyone at this point'
Wed Jan 02 2008 07:32:44 ET
Friends,
A new year has begun. And before we've had a chance to break our New Year's resolutions, we find ourselves with a little more than 24 hours before the good people of Iowa tell us whom they would like to replace the man who now occupies three countries and a white house.
Twice before, we have begun the process to stop this man, and twice we have failed. Eight years of our lives as Americans will have been lost, the world left in upheaval against us... and yet now, today, we hope against hope that our moment has finally arrived, that the amazingly powerful force of the Republican Party will somehow be halted. But we know that the Democrats are experts at snatching defeat from the jaws of victory, and if there's a way to blow this election, they will find it and do it with gusto.
Do you feel the same as me? That the Democratic front-runners are a less-than-stellar group of candidates, and that none of them are the "slam dunk" we wish they were? Of course, there are wonderful things about each of them. Any one of them would be infinitely better than what we have now. Personally, Congressman Kucinich, more than any other candidate, shares the same positions that I have on the issues (although the UFO that picked ME up would only take me as far as Kalamazoo). But let's not waste time talking about Dennis. Even he is resigned to losing, with statements like the one he made yesterday to his supporters in Iowa to throw their support to Senator Obama as their "second choice."
So, it's Hillary, Obama, Edwards — now what do we do?
Two months ago, Rolling Stone magazine asked me to do a cover story where I would ask the hard questions that no one was asking in one-on-one interviews with Senators Clinton, Obama and Edwards. "The Top Democrats Face Off with Michael Moore." The deal was that all three candidates had to agree to let me interview them or there was no story. Obama and Edwards agreed. Mrs. Clinton said no, and the cover story was thus killed.
Why would the love of my life, Hillary Clinton, not sit down to talk with me? What was she afraid of?
Those of you who are longtime readers of mine may remember that 11 years ago I wrote a chapter (in my first book) entitled, "My Forbidden Love for Hillary." I was fed up with the treatment she was getting, most of it boringly sexist, and I thought somebody should stand up for her. I later met her and she thanked me for referring to her as "one hot s***kicking feminist babe." I supported and contributed to her run for the U.S. Senate. I think she is a decent and smart person who loves this country, cares deeply about kids, and has put up with more crap than anyone I know of (other than me) from the Crazy Right. Her inauguration would be a thrilling sight, ending 218 years of white male rule in a country where 51% of its citizens are female and 64% are either female or people of color.
And yet, I am sad to say, nothing has disappointed me more than the disastrous, premeditated vote by Senator Hillary Clinton to send us to war in Iraq. I'm not only talking about her first vote that gave Mr. Bush his "authorization" to invade — I'm talking about every single OTHER vote she then cast for the next four years, backing and funding Bush's illegal war, and doing so with verve. She never met a request from the White House for war authorization that she didn't like. Unlike the Kerrys and the Bidens who initially voted for authorization but later came to realize the folly of their decision, Mrs. Clinton continued to cast numerous votes for the war until last March — four long years of pro-war votes, even after 70% of the American public had turned against the war. She has steadfastly refused to say that she was wrong about any of this, and she will not apologize for her culpability in America's worst-ever foreign policy disaster. All she can bring herself to say is that she was "misled" by "faulty intelligence."
Let's assume that's true. Do you want a President who is so easily misled? I wasn't "misled," and millions of others who took to the streets in February of 2003 weren't "misled" either. It was simply amazing that we knew the war was wrong when none of us had been briefed by the CIA, none of us were national security experts, and none of us had gone on a weapons inspection tour of Iraq. And yet... we knew we were being lied to! Let me ask those of you reading this letter: Were YOU "misled" — or did you figure it out sometime between October of 2002 and March of 2007 that George W. Bush was up to something rotten? Twenty-three other senators were smart enough to figure it out and vote against the war from the get-go. Why wasn't Sen. Clinton?
I have a theory: Hillary knows the sexist country we still live in and that one of the reasons the public, in the past, would never consider a woman as president is because she would also be commander in chief. The majority of Americans were concerned that a woman would not be as likely to go to war as a man (horror of horrors!). So, in order to placate that mindset, perhaps she believed she had to be as "tough" as a man, she had to be willing to push The Button if necessary, and give the generals whatever they wanted. If this is, in fact, what has motivated her pro-war votes, then this would truly make her a scary first-term president. If the U.S. is faced with some unforeseen threat in her first years, she knows that in order to get re-elected she'd better be ready to go all Maggie Thatcher on whoever sneezes in our direction. Do we want to risk this, hoping the world makes it in one piece to her second term?
I have not even touched on her other numerous — and horrendous — votes in the Senate, especially those that have made the middle class suffer even more (she voted for Bush's first bankruptcy bill, and she is now the leading recipient of payoff money — I mean campaign contributions — from the health care industry). I know a lot of you want to see her elected, and there is a very good chance that will happen. There will be plenty of time to vote for her in the general election if all the pollsters are correct. But in the primaries and caucuses, isn't this the time to vote for the person who most reflects the values and politics you hold dear? Can you, in good conscience, vote for someone who so energetically voted over and over and over again for the war in Iraq? Please give this serious consideration.
Now, on to the two candidates who did agree to do the interview with me...
Barack Obama is a good and inspiring man. What a breath of fresh air! There's no doubting his sincerity or his commitment to trying to straighten things out in this country. But who is he? I mean, other than a guy who gives a great speech? How much do any of us really know about him? I know he was against the war. How do I know that? He gave a speech before the war started. But since he joined the senate, he has voted for the funds for the war, while at the same time saying we should get out. He says he's for the little guy, but then he votes for a corporate-backed bill to make it harder for the little guy to file a class action suit when his kid swallows lead paint from a Chinese-made toy. In fact, Obama doesn't think Wall Street is a bad place. He wants the insurance companies to help us develop a new health care plan — the same companies who have created the mess in the first place. He's such a feel-good kinda guy, I get the sense that, if elected, the Republicans will eat him for breakfast. He won't even have time to make a good speech about it.
But this may be a bit harsh. Sen. Obama has a big heart, and that heart is in the right place. Is he electable? Will more than 50% of America vote for him? We'd like to believe they would. We'd like to believe America has changed, wouldn't we? Obama lets us feel better about ourselves — and as we look out the window at the guy snowplowing his driveway across the street, we want to believe he's changed, too. But are we dreaming?
And then there's John Edwards.
It's hard to get past the hair, isn't it? But once you do — and recently I have chosen to try — you find a man who is out to take on the wealthy and powerful who have made life so miserable for so many. A candidate who says things like this: "I absolutely believe to my soul that this corporate greed and corporate power has an ironclad hold on our democracy." Whoa. We haven't heard anyone talk like that in a while, at least not anyone who is near the top of the polls. I suspect this is why Edwards is doing so well in Iowa, even though he has nowhere near the stash of cash the other two have. He won't take the big checks from the corporate PACs, and he is alone among the top three candidates in agreeing to limit his spending and be publicly funded. He has said, point-blank, that he's going after the drug companies and the oil companies and anyone else who is messing with the American worker. The media clearly find him to be a threat, probably because he will go after their monopolistic power, too. This is Roosevelt/Truman kind of talk. That's why it's resonating with people in Iowa, even though he doesn't get the attention Obama and Hillary get — and that lack of coverage may cost him the first place spot tomorrow night. After all, he is one of those white guys who's been running things for far too long.
And he voted for the war. But unlike Sen. Clinton, he has stated quite forcefully that he was wrong. And he has remorse. Should he be forgiven? Did he learn his lesson? Like Hillary and Obama, he refused to promise in a September debate that there will be no U.S. troops in Iraq by the end of his first term in 2013. But this week in Iowa, he changed his mind. He went further than Clinton and Obama and said he'd have all the troops home in less than a year.
Edwards is the only one of the three front-runners who has a universal health care plan that will lead to the single-payer kind all other civilized countries have. His plan doesn't go as fast as I would like, but he is the only one who has correctly pointed out that the health insurance companies are the enemy and should not have a seat at the table.
I am not endorsing anyone at this point. This is simply how I feel in the first week of the process to replace George W. Bush. For months I've been wanting to ask the question, "Where are you, Al Gore?" You can only polish that Oscar for so long. And the Nobel was decided by Scandinavians! I don't blame you for not wanting to enter the viper pit again after you already won. But getting us to change out our incandescent light bulbs for some irritating fluorescent ones isn't going to save the world. All it's going to do is make us more agitated and jumpy and feeling like once we get home we haven't really left the office.
On second thought, would you even be willing to utter the words, "I absolutely believe to my soul that this corporate greed and corporate power has an ironclad hold on our democracy?" 'Cause the candidate who understands that, and who sees it as the root of all evil — including the root of global warming — is the President who may lead us to a place of sanity, justice and peace.
Yours,
Michael Moore (not an Iowa voter, but appreciative of any state that has a town named after a sofa)
Comments
But he does heartily endorse Wendy's new Baconator sandwhich.
Jeez the fat fuck is long winded, boring and oh so irrelevant.
shut up.
How your sausage gets eaten.
@Chief Wahoo: Ha! Wendy's will give him an endorsement deal. But then he'll start 'eating' Quiznos sandwiches and 'walking' everywhere so he can lose like 200 lbs, and get ANOTHER endorsement deal with a food establishment. Gotta admit he's good at blatant self-promotion.
I'm all for Democrats copying the Republican playbook in 2008 and electing someone who stands, like Ronald Reagan, for absolutely nothing. Go Obama.
Vegas is now showing 4:1 Words vs. Pounds, but fuck if I'm taking the time to figure it out.
@Reluctant Financier: Also, good at directing documentary films.
John Edwards, Fortress Partners - hedge fund - employee, taking on the rich.
If only you people knew how much of a howler it is for hedgies to watch John Edwards make populist comments.
What's with the hating on Michael Moore? Isn't the gratuitous backlash over? Oh, wait: maybe this is the backlash to the backlash to the backlash. Now I get it.
@Mediahohoho:
Speaking of which - did anyone else notice how the ad campaign tried to portray "Sicko" as a comedy?
@Mediahohoho: Not really. One sided hatchet jobs that feature himself seem less documentary and more self promotion to me.
@In Other News...:
It substitutes sympathy for argumentation and then demands to be taken seriously.
Makes me giggle!
...and, why didn't he just replace Hillary with Kucinich in the g_ddamned article? Too second-tier-candidate for his tastes? Or, not enough seasoning?
Can we please lock Michael Moore in a closet with Rush Limbaugh and catapult them into the sun, like, the day before yesterday?
@Fritzpeterson: Well, you are entitled to your opinion. But it's in the vast minority in this case. He's a fine documentarian and will continue to be regarded that way long after you and I are dead and buried.
@ginger rant: It'll never, ever end. Someone with opinion, skills, a confrontational style and a weight problem = every argument a fat republican needs to make for the rest of his life.
@In Other News...: Yes, because ad campaigns always accurately reflect the content of the movies they market. Just killed the poor little flick at the box office, too.
Jeebus Michael, nobody cares. Shut the fuck up already
@Mediahohoho: Such a New York centric point of view. While he has had some commercial success and clearly is popular in certain circles, he is not as overwhelmingly popular or regarded as you seem to indicate.
Truth is, there many highly regarded critics -- liberal as well as conservative -- of Michael Moore and his supposed documentaries. What Ken Burns does is a documentary. What Michael Moore does is a one-sided, opinionated and often deceitful commercial movie making venture that has more entertainment value than it does informational value. And the entertainment value is also quite debatable.
@Mediahohoho: Yea, because the fact that Moore leaked it on the Internet prior to its release had nothing to do with killing it at the box office.
@Truculent: Um, I care. Find my ass, and you can kick it.
@Fritzpeterson: What Michael Moore does is one of many styles of documentary. Ken Burns's style is just another, as are the Maylses, etc., etc. You obviously don't like his style. But with three of the top ten grossing docs of all time and three of the top five political docs, your declaration of his not being a documentarian is personal to you, and perhaps others, but certainly not universal. As for me, I find his films both informative and entertaining. And I happen to appreciate a diversity of documentary styles and filmmakers.
As for the other comment, I was being facetious. Sicko grossed $35 million worldwide at the box office ($25 million of that domestically); it's a spectacular number for a doc. Who knows why studios market films the way they do?
@Fritzpeterson: And while, yes, I live in New York, I grew up in Michigan. I would hope neither fact has fuck-all to do with this conversation and have no idea why you bring it up.
@Fritzpeterson: I would credit his poor showing at the box office to the same thing that has forced Gawker to stop running Julia Allison items: my own personal boycott of all of the above.
Oh, wait.
See, I'll never understand this. I've probably watched all of 10 minutes of the television show 24--it just seems to me a lot of overripe clap. I know that it is cited by retards as august as justice Scalia as reason enough to torture anyone we fucking feel like torturing and I know that its creator, Joel Snarnow, has been called in by the White House to consult with them on ways of making us all okay with the fact that we now torture (although, ahem, we really don't torture). And yet, it would still never occur to me to say, Joel Sarnow isn't a television director. He's just a bad one that I disagree with.
@Mediahohoho: Oh really? Let's consider the definition of a documentary.
Movies, Television. based on or re-creating an actual event, era, life story, etc., that purports to be factually accurate and contains no fictional elements: a documentary life of Gandhi. (Random House Unabridged Dictionary)
Presenting facts objectively without editorializing or inserting fictional matter, as in a book or film. (American Heritage Dictionary)
emphasizing or expressing things as perceived without distortion of personal feelings, insertion of fictional matter, or interpretation; "objective art" (WordNet by Princeton University)
Moores films do not fit within any of these definitions. Sure, they are defined as Documentaries by the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences, but only after great controversy and primarily because there was no better category to consider them in. Any right-minded, objective, non-partisan person would agree that his films are polemics, and the farthest thing from a documentary as one was historically defined. For those of you who will argue that he has changed the very definition of the documentary film, be prepared to reap the whirlwind when conservatives begin producing equally subjective, distorted, and untruthful films which they pass off as truthful work.
@Chief Wahoo: Yahoo, Wahoo! Well said.
Ken Burns is not Michael Moore; polemic is the right word for Moore's often-good work.
I thank god that Michael Moore exists and am grateful for the work he's done. Nobody loves Ken Burns more than me (Trust me on this one!) but Michael Moore is a completely different film-maker. He's a good old fashioned muckraker and I love that about him. I'm a bleeding heart lefty from way back and there was a time when liberals had balls and didn't take shit from the fascists. And I don't give a shit that he's fat. I want to watch his films not fuck him.
@topsy:
agreed. he may be long-winded but i'm definitely glad he's around.
@Fritzpeterson: The entertainment value is often completely unrelated (or in reaction) to the intended entertainment value of his 'films.'
@Chief Wahoo: Sorry, I missed the "controversy" of which you speak, mostly because it's a product of the fevered minds at Fox News. The fact remains that Michael Moore is one of many kinds of documentary filmmaker. Look up agitprop when you have a chance.
As for your last, typically ridiculous, sentence, conservatives have been producing agitprop for a long time, the absolute crap from Swiftboat Veterans for Truth, c. 2004, being but a recent example. Although critically and in commercial terms, their body of work is nothing short of an abortion (especially compared to a film like Bowling for Columbine), I would never say it isn't documentary film making. It's just crap. Like most of the art conservatives try to make.
Finally, as to your definitions of what constitute a documentary, I lived in Michigan from 1969 to 1986. I would say that if Roger & Me aimed to capture the economic havoc and personal despair wrought by the automotive giants' (certainly arguable, but nevertheless perceived by some) fiduciary responsibility to the communities they were abandoning for cheaper labor in the early 80s, and their total lack of accountability to those communities, he fucking nailed it. If you missed that, and insist on reducing that film to "just a polemic" I really can't help you, because you're pretty much committed to missing the point.
@Chief Wahoo: Besides which, I defy you to find a political documentary that doesn't have a point of view. What fucking planet do you live on?
@Mediahohoho: Wow, you're a bit of a tool, aren't you? Let me see if I can answer your arguments without resorting to the petty ad hominems you seem to utilize in lieu of reasoned discussion.
The 'controversy' I mentioned was wholly within the Academy, you know, the people who award the Oscars? Nothing to do with Fox News, as much as you want to villify them even in situations they have nothing to do with. If you were involved in the industry, or even bothered to read Variety, you would have been well aware of the uproar about the classification of his films. It was so controversial that it ultimately resulted in the Academy altering the nomination and voting process for it's awards, a first in the lengthy history of the Oscars.
As for the Conservative backlash, the Swift Boat Veterans deal didn't involve a documentary, but rather a series of commercials. Like Michael Moore, you are attempting to argue a point by misstating facts and bending the truth to suit your argument. Documentary films and campaign commercials are entirely different entities, the fact that you consider the two interchangeable demonstrates just how much of blind party follower you are. Yes, the Swift Boat Veterans produced false and misleading campaign ads, but we were discussing documentaries here.
As far as Roger and Me is concerned, it is certainly the closest Mr. Moore has come to making a proper documentary. He took some small liberties with the truth and used a little creative editing to make his point, but I don't think overly egregiously. His subsequent work, however, has completely ignored the rules and strictures of the genre.
For your final point, of course documentaries have a point of view. that is the reason for their very existence. It is entirely possible to create a documentary that not only has a point of view but is also honest in it's reportage. The more truthful and objective a documentary is, the more devastating it is in it's effectiveness. For an example see any of Barbara Koppel's work.
As for the planet I live on, it is one where I look at issues with an open mind and do not allow blind loyalty to an ideology to triumph over objective reality. A world where rational inquisition is more valuable than slavish adherence to a party line. How about you?
@Chief Wahoo: Brilliant responses!!
@Mediahohoho: I am a born and bred New Yorker. I love this city to death, but having had the opportunity to travel extensively I've noticed that there is a phenomenon in this city (that affects transplants as well) in which we tend to believe that because it is so in NYC, it is so throughout the world. We have this sense that we are the norm. We are NOT the norm (thank goodness). That was the genesis for my remark. In truth, after I posted, that was the one remark I regretted and would have deleted if I had the capability to do so. So please, consider the remark withdrawn and, if it offended you, my apologies.
That said, we are all entitled to our opinions, especially on such a polarizing subject as Michael Moore. Truth is, my beef with your arguments are not your opinion on the man and his work but rather the absolutes which you use to describe his work. I merely am pointing out that while he has popularity within a certain fan base, it is NOT universal by any stretch of the imagination. He has critics on both sides of the political spectrum. And his commercial success is not overwhelming by any objective measure.
So, you open with an ad hominem insult and then say you'll use facts so won't resort to ad hominems like me. And it mostly goes downhill from there.
Having not been in the country 2000 - 2004, and in fact away from much of the western media, including Variety, yeah, I missed the Academy's discussion about how to classify Moore's film (I'm guessing this was Columbine--I was in Syria. So I'll give you that: the Academy had a controversy about how to classify Moore's films because many of the members didn't believe they were documentaries. And I'm sure many of the members still don't.
But I did at the time have access to Fox, and I remember many a tear welling up in Sean Hannity's eye and Bill O'Reilly on the edge of apoplexy plenty about the eventual nomination (and his subsequent speech-something about how we were being lied into a war or some such), so don't try to rewrite history (full-time conservative occupation, I know, but mellow out, 'kay?).
And I still fail to see how any of this reclassifies his films. And all I've said through this thread is that people's opinions don't make his films not documentaries. And I'm fairly certain that if you took 100 of the most notable documentarians of all time, from Errol Morris to Albert Mayles to Barbara Koppel herself and ask them and I'm fairly certain they'd include Moore in their ranks.
Speaking of rank, here is a link ([www.swiftvets.com]) to the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth documentaries. I got there by going to the Swift Boat page and clicking on the link entitled "documentaries." Nothing needed to be twisted: they define these movies as documentaries. I'd probably find them to be a collection of hatchet jobs and lies, but I wouldn't question their status as documentaries. Why should I? And, yes, Chief Yahoo, I can tell the difference between their 527 advocacy ads and documentary films, including the ones that aired for free on Clear Channel stations, even when I know that the films and ads are connected.
Why? Because I'm a fucking grown up. Grown ups accept that others have different points of view without whining endlessly about how unfair it is when others don't see how bogus that point of view is. You don't like Columbine? Think Farenheit or Sicko are bullshit? Then get out there and prove it with a better film. After all, you've got truth on your side, right?
Or is it just easier to whine and malign and attack a dude for his weight and the style of his film making? See, this is where it all falls apart for me. If Michael Moore is such a hack, how come no one can outdo him? Is it the vast leftwing conspiracy again?
Finally, your claim that you, "look at issues with an open mind and do not allow blind loyalty to an ideology to triumph over objective reality. A world where rational inquisition is more valuable than slavish adherence to a party line," has never been borne out by anything you ever actually say. I call bullshit.
@Fritzpeterson: All I've said thoughout this entire discussion is that people not liking the style or content of Michael Moore's films does not cease to make his films documentaries. Obviously, this is only my subjective opinion. To my knowledge there isn't a quantifiable measurement.
As for the New York-centric comment, I accept your apology. There are a lot of reasons to wear that badge with pride.
@Mediahohoho: Christ this is getting tiresome. You say that people's opinions should not disqualify his films from being considered documentaries. You butress this point by assuming that in the opinion of documentarians he would be considered as such.
Setting aside your massive and wholly unsupported assumption, you are still missing the point. Go back to my original post. Opinion doesn't enter into the matter. There are and have always been clearly defined definitions of documentary filmmaking and his filme stray widely from them. That's not opinion. It's fact.
I do aologize for not knowing that the Swift Boat crowd also mislabeled their work as Documentaries. Again, it goes back to my original post. You are seeing the results of Moores distortion of what can be labelled documentary work, which is the subsequent misuse of the term by the right wing. Congratulations. You have successfuly cheapened the term to the point of meaninglessness in the pursuit of your political agenda.
Throughout this exchange my sole point has been to protect a standard and promote objectivity. I'm not attacking Michael Moore (aside from my one cheap gag about him and cheeseburgers, which was obviously not meant too seriously and occurred outside of our dialogue). I'm questioning his methodology. You, on the other hand, rant on about "sides" and Clear Channel, and Fox, and conspiracies. I'm arguing in favor of objectivity, you are waging a political campaign. Call bullshit on my objectivity? OK, point it out. Show me where I am favoring one side over another.
Forget opinion. Forget politics. Using the established standards and definitions of documentary filmmaking the vast majority of Michael Moore's (as well as the Swift Boat Vets) work does not qualify as documentary film.
@Chief Wahoo: Holy fuck, I'm just saying that his films fit many people's established definitions of documentary film. They do mine. They don't yours. It's still opinion.
@Chief Wahoo: I actually thought the cheeseburger joke was funny.
@Chief Wahoo: Hah, hah. What a dunce. So happy to see OSU get their asses handed to them again. Pussies.
Anyway, to the matter at hand. I've thought long and hard about out little discussion in the last week or so and what I realized was this: you're just fucking wrong. Not about the definitions of documentary film but about Michael Moore. I've seen all his films, most of them more than once, and I fucking defy you to tell me what in each of those films he's lied about. You may not like his editing or his confrontational style, but get in a fact-checking match with the guy and you'll lose. It happens all