So I went to go see Fahrenheit 9/11 the other night. In fact, I went to see it when it opened to the public. That's right... Friday morning at midnight at the Georgetown Loews theater.

The place was packed, as were the other three or four showings immediately following each 5 minutes or so. I guess I wasn't too surprised, then, when the movie grossed more in one weekend than any other previous documentary (I'm talking one weekend versus the entire period of showing). Pretty amazing, no?

Now to the movie. I must say that it was pretty entertaining. Save for the fact that I had to sit through about 35 minutes of ads (the "12:01" showing didn't actually bgin until around 12:40). In fact, had the movie not started so late (and thus ended so late, leaving me only 4 1/2 hours of sleep), I would have few complaints.

Having read Kevin Phillips' most recent work, "American Dynasty", which like "House of Bush, House of Saud" deals with the Bush family's longstanding ties with the Saudi royal family, I was familiar with most of the charges laid out in the movie. However, most Americans are not, so it's good that they are going in droves to see the movie. Although the movie is obviously slanted and biased, and I think Moore is at times a bit unfair (I can't think of a specific moment in this movie, but his unnecessary attacks on Alzheimer's patient Charlton Heston in his last movie comes to mind), I'm glad a number of Americans are going to see the movie. It might not change many minds, but even if it changes a few, that's important.

I guess the way that I feel about the movie is that it is cathartic; that is to say it provides good release for those of us with pent up aggression. In the words of Tony Soprano, "it's like taking a shit." Let me put it a little more softly. A lot of Democrats are fed up with this administration, and many even feel that the election was stolen three and a half years ago. For these people, going to this movie will:

a) Get them motivated for the November election
b) Help them channel their aggression into positive actions, such as grassroots organizing.

It is primarily for these two reasons that I think this movie was a success.

Now to why I have mixed feelings.

When people say that there is little to no difference between Hannity, O'Reilly or Coulter and Moore, I think that there is some truth to that. WHOA!!! STOP THE PRESSES!!! (You're probably thinking to yourself right now, "this guy is some right wing nut in disguise, or even worse, a DLC Democrat) Before you pass judgement, let me flush out my thoughts.

I know I didn't complain about him when he was working to help Wes Clark win the nomination (sadly, neither Mike nor I could assure the General of victory); however, I'm seeing a little more clearly now. Although I think Moore takes a little less creative license with his use of facts than his three right-wing adversaries, in the end, his tactics are little different. He clearly is not out to change minds, but rather to rally support around his cause (a valid form of political action... it's certainly important to get out your base). What is more, he is really good at what he does.

There are downsides to this type of politicking, though. When demagogues on each side of the aisle (I think there are more on the Right than on the Left) drive their supporters into a frenzy during which time they are completely radicalized, unable to accept compromise, the schism between Americans grows increasingly wide. Obviously (or perhaps not obviously enough), this is not a good thing. Right now, America needs more coming together and less partisan rancour, and Michael Moore is not trying to accomplish that.

There is a reason why American's elected George W. Bush in 2000. Although, as Jon Stewart said tonight, he was lying when he claimed to be a "compassionate conservative", a "uniter, not a divider", Americans really wanted a President that would transcend partisan politics to fight to make the country a better place. Citizens gave the President the benefit of doubt on numerous occasions, and almost all Americans rallied around their President after the horrible attacks of 9/11; however, the President chose on almost every occasion to be partisan, if possible, and ideological always, rather than attempting to unite the country. That is why he is a failure in many minds.

While Moore certainly makes a convincing argument, I think the nation needs a leader that is willing to turn away from the bitter partisanship on both sides. I don't know if John Kerry is the man to do it (I do hope he is), but I think he should be supported in his attempts to move towards the center rather than chastised. The more any politician can do to ease partisan strife in this country, the better.

I'll end on this note of hopefulness. My state, the wonderful state of Oregon, saw one of the dirtiest and most spiteful campaigns ever in the winter of 1995-96 as then-Congressman Ron Wyden (D) and then-state Senator Gordon Smith (R) battled to take over the seat previously held by Bob Packwood. About two weeks before the campaign ended, Wyden went on the air and said that he would stop all of his negative ads; this move won him the very close election.

After Gordon Smith won Oregon's other seat (held by retiring Senator Mark Hatfield, one of my great political role models) ten months later, many pundits thought that Wyden and Smith would continue their grudge while together in the Senate. Many believed that the rancour of the campaign would sour any possible relationship the state's two Senator's could share.

Before Smith was sworn in, though, Ron went to his office, one-on-one, and had a heart-to-heart with his Republican colleague. The two realized that regardless of partisan affiliation or ideology, it was in the state of Oregon's, and indeed the nation's, best interest for the two of them to work together. In the past seven and a half years, the two have become living proof that bitter partisanship can be overcome.

Whoever wins the Presidential election--and I'm clearly hoping that it will be Kerry--I hope that he is willing to put away partisanship for the next four years to make sure that America's best interest, not the interest of the party or the ideology, is served.