Is this what the writer (and Speilberg) is saying?
“But unlike many politicians, OBAMA was at considerable risk to both his political fortunes and his legacy, willing to fight for the unpopular position on AFFORDABLE HEALTHCARE simply because, above everything else, he knew it was right.”
And
“But in deciding to tell the story on a small scale, the director has brought attention to OBAMA the man - rather than OBAMA the legend - and made this great leader into a relatable figure who achieved greatness by never backing down from the principle that all men should have HEALTH INSURANCE.
Everything out of Hollywood should be considered suspect. I’ll never feed the beast again.
“But unlike many politicians, [OBAMA] was at considerable risk to both his political fortunes and his legacy, willing to fight for the unpopular position on [AFFORDABLE HEALTHCARE] simply because, above everything else, he knew it was right.”
That about gets it -- not having seen the film yet, I would guess it's a paean to "strong leadership" (as opposed to Constitutional leadership, which is "weak"). How "rising above" scruples, principles, and anything else is sometimes "necessary" ..... as when making an omelette, as Stalin once pointed out.
Fortunately for Spielberg, Obama has been compared -- and has compared himself, helpfully -- to Lincoln often enough already, that people will "get it".
A good political movie, like a good crisis, ought never to go to waste.
I wonder if they actually intended this film for release during the election campaign, but fell behind schedule.