I watched Fahrenheit 9/11 last night, Moore's one-two punch against George Bush. My feelings on it were mixed -- the Bush-bashing parts were stupid because making fun of George Bush happens every day and Bush is far too easy a target to really give it any significance. The underlying conspiracy theories were not fully fleshed out, and it seemed like Moore failed to use his movie to support his theories, ending up with a bunch of vague scandalous plot segues instead.

About halfway through the movie though, Moore runs out of steam with the Bush bashinig and it becomes a documentary about the war in Iraq, from the perspectives of troops and families of the troops. It's in these parts, where both George Bush and Michael Moore can't be seen, that the movie is very effective. For intelligent viewers, the movie does a great job demonizing the war, but only a marginal job demonizing the administration behind the war. Perhaps if Moore had stopped being so Moore for a few months in the editing room, he could have crafted a much more effective marketing tool.

After the movie, I caught the last half of the Cheney-Edwards debate, with Cheney's one-two punches against Edwards and Edwards' two-three punches right back at 'im. Apparently they've got Edwards in full "defer to Kerry" mode which probably should have been more balanced out with "Who is Edwards" mode. They also spent too much time defending flipflopping by accusing the other side of flipflopping, rather than making the distinction between flipflopping and re-evaluating decisions based on new evidence.

We had frost last night.