Who cares about Michael Moore?

There was some discussion today, round the blogs, starting with this post by Atrios, concerning opposition to the Afghan war, Michael Moore and the Karzai/UNOCAL/Fahrenheit 9-11 connection accompanied by this article concerning the DLC and their concern with Michael Moore.

On all this I tend to agree with Atrios. Their is no sense in Democrats eating their own, or worrying that Michael Moore has somehow become the face of Democratic foreign policy.

I saw Fahrenheit 9-11 twice and loved it. But, I didn't leave the theater thinking the Afghan war was illegitimate, and I don't think Moore implied that in the film. He did point out that it was a little odd that we picked a former UNOCAL board member to lead the country, but so what?! I happen to like Karzai, but I have no doubt that the only person Bush felt comfortable with to lead Afghanistan was someone with close ties to the west, who spoke fluent English and had some degree of corporate interests/connections to keep him on the reservation, as it were. That says more about Bush and the world we live in than it does about the morality of the war in Afghanistan. Moore's movie was about Iraq, and that was it's main thrust.

What sort of party are we if we tremble in fear every time an outspoken actor or film director speaks out? Michael Moore, Whoopi Goldberg, Streisand...They're entertainers and they play their role in the party, just as the Republicans have Jerry Falwell, bad country music singers and Mel Gibson. Come to think of it, when "The Passion" came out and was embraced by Christian evangelicalS, you didn't see Bush campaign officials fretting nervously over whether the Republican party would now be seen as anti-semitic. By the same token, why should Democrats worry that we'll now be seen as Moore inspired pacifists?