Objective?

As I continue to partake in a spirited debate on the Swiftian Ad, I do sometimes wonder about objectivity. I cannot deny my support for Kerry and utter disgust with the guy we currently have in the white house. But in a probably perverted allegiance to rationality and objectivity, I do wonder:

Is there any difference between Unfit for Command (and its associated swing state ad campaign) and Fahrenheit 9/11?

After all, both attack their respective targets’ cornerstones:
SBVFT -> Kerry’s Vietnam record.
F9/11 -> Bush’s 9/11 record.

Moore has been more upfront that the movie is clearly partisan. The Swifties dance around it, trying to cloak themselves in a mantle of righteous indignation. The later position is kind of stupid – all you need to do is follow the money and you see there’s more than objective fact-checking going on.

Moore at least attempts to use credible sources and cites evidence. So, the two methodologies are clearly different. However the ultimate effect seems to be the same: both are preaching to their respective choirs and providing fresh vitriol for the opposing sides. Neither seems to be speaking to the undecided; probably because there aren’t any, at this stage.

The Swifties used Bush-backers for their funding. Moore, well, I don’t know exactly where he got the money to make the film, but he was given a prominent seat at the convention.

Objectively, neither is purely objective.

All we can look at is which case is more compelling, based on fact. F9/11 has more fact-based rhetoric. Can the Swifties bring one shred of real evidence to their side? So far, they cannot.

I feel better now.