Look, I think he is (and you are) making a big deal about the election mention. That wasn't the point. His point was to exaggerate the lump sum of his grievances. I can see what the reviewer was getting at with most of his points, and I think he was on to something. However, I think you are mistaking the overall point of his article. His basic message, IMO, is that Moore should have been more diplomatic and middle-of-the-road about his speech. You know what I say? Screw that!

I'm tired of people trying to pander to the the greater population. Perhaps if people actually said what they wanted to more, the people of the country would have a better idea of where everyone stood. Instead, regardless of election results, we get a President who panders to the masses, then runs straight back to the right or the left. That is what pisses me off. I dislike moderates who are not actually moderates.

As for the diplomatic speeches, several actors said something about the war. Yes, it seemed kinda dumb. The only one I took seriously was Chris Cooper who said he felt silly for accepting an award while Americans are dying overseas. That's not anti- or pro-war, that's a commentary. The rest of the comments were extremely diplomatic attempts to not insult either side. You know what? Those are less productive than Moore's comments.

Anyway, I'm not sure why I'm arguing, because i sincerely doubt that anything these people say matters, but since your argument is based in the idea that it does matter, I felt like saying something about it.

Damnit, why am I not going to sleep. I'm still rambling...