Ebert's really "powerless to explain" that? Give me a break.
I hear that there was a reasonably pro-Bush documentary awhile back (Travels with George) that didn't turn out to be the "get Bush" slam that so many liberals were hoping for. I have not seen the film and the director's mom is a liberal reporter I think so I am just going on the words of other people that it is "pro-Bush". How about saying that one was "moderate Bush" and Moore's film is rabidly "anti Bush"? A "pro Bush" film should make no mistakes in its presentation of what the perspective is, we would clearly know that it is "pro Bush".
Maybe moreso than Ebert asking "where is the pro Bush film" he should be asking "where is the anti Kerry film"? I'm sure that the veterans groups have a lot of dirt to spill. Heck, where are the revival screenings at colleges and museums of Winter Soldier showing Kerry's post-service Vietnam War activities? How soon after Kerry is elected will these become "fair game" for the liberal institutions to show us? Check online, you will find copies of this film at a lot of college libraries.
For someone who makes so much of his few months in Vietnam, we certainly aren't hearing much about "what he did during the war".
Moore's most accurate work is Canadian Bacon. Ebert is still waiting for the Oscar for Beyond the valley of the Dolls.
There were quite a few "shot on video" films that were released to theaters (such as Landmark's art house chain). The first one that comes to mind is "The War Room" about the campaign (George Stephenolous and James Carville in particular).
I think some of these election era pro-Clinton films were shot on video (A) because they didn't know if he would win and (B) because they didn't know if they would get a distribution deal so they wouldn't be spending as much money if they couldn't get it released.
I know that there were others. List them if you can. Also indicate if they got theatrical distribution.
On the "anti-Clinton" side there was "Waco:The Rules Of Engagement" (1997). It was even nominated for an Oscar but lost out to another film about the Holocaust I believe. WTROI did not play any theaters in Houston outside of an arranged screening at Rice University's Media Center (I heard about it on a radio show that was locally broadcast on a station that sold air time). The theater was absolutely sold out. I bought the video but could do nothing to persuade my liberal friends to even consider watching it.
Years later a followup film was made by the same producer, Michael McNulty, titled Waco: A New Revelation (1999). Some feel that it was not as well made. It expanded on a few elements from the first film but was also meant to work as a stand alone film. Among the most "shocking" footage was of a reporter being pummeled by the ATF (6 or so agents) beating a reporter to get his tape of the initial (poorly executed) assault. Reportedly the journalist was unhappy with that scene being included but they had signed a release on the footage before they reviewed what it exactly contained. I only ever saw this film screened in Houston at the Worldfest Film Festival. Afterwards I ate a steak dinner with one of the directors, Jason Van Vleet.
Neither Waco documentary ever put Bill Clinton's reelection at risk (both were made in his second term even though the event dates back to the early days of his first administration).
If there were other anti Clinton documentaries that were theatrically released, I would like to know what they were.
Feel free to mention any anti Reagan or anti Bush41 movies you can think of. Oliver Stone tried to make a film version of a book (Brought To Light, if I recall) designed to do to Bush41 what Moore hopes to do to Bush43. When Mr. Stone could not get financing/a distribution deal to get the movie out in time for the 1988 election, he dropped the project.