Blog Wars (2006 TV Movie) User Reviews

A New Hope...

[juliankennedy23 · 7/10 · 12 October 2008]

Blog Wars is a surprisingly tight documentary that focuses on the Ned Lamont/ Joe Lieberman fight for the Democratic Primary in CT. It also touches other blogger wins most noticeably the Dan Rather fiasco with the fake George Bush National Guard Memos.

The film also wisely allows critics of the bloggers to chime in such as Andrew Sullivan and Christopher Hitchens.

For a film that focuses most of its running time on the liberal bloggers on the Lamont side it surprisingly is somewhat critical of them. Many come across as a political version of that guy who learned to speak Klingon and dresses up in full Star Fleet Regalia.

The two bloggers that are the films focus are Markos Moulitsas (Daily Kos) and Jane Hamsher (Firedoglake) don’t come across any better than the rabble. When Christopher Hitchins says that the bloggers are self centered Markos (Complete with a speech coach... WTF?) certainly will pop into your head; And when Sullivan points out that the candidacy of Lamont is more about purging heretics than politics Hamsher seems to fit that bill.

It is to the films credit that it shows the bloggers warts and all, but the film focuses on the liberal bloggers Who therefore end up taking most of the hits. While right-wing blogger Michelle Malkin comes across as intelligent, well spoken and beautiful; Jane Hamsher, a Hollywood film producer (Natural Born Killers), comes across as well spoken, beautiful, and possessing about as much common sense as one of her ever present dogs. (She is the one after all who decided to post a picture of Lieberman in Blackface with Clinton. When the film gives her a chance to explain herself for this gaff she claims no-one could have foreseen the backlash... (Uh-huh). With no discernible job or income stream Hamsher is more like a rich debutante from California coming to help the little people than anything grassroots. I do wish the film had spent a little more time with ordinary (if less attractive) people.

Speaking of rich debutantes one does have to feel for the Connecticut bloggers. Ned Lamont comes across in the film as he did in the campaign; a slightly duller, slightly richer, and slightly whiter Dan Quayle. The bloggers learned an eternal truth that November. First you need a good product... then you can sell it.

The fact Lamont’s deer in headlights campaign got any votes at all is a testament to the power of the bloggers.

A good film to catch if you read or write political blogs as it makes good points and is tighter and more interesting than I expected

[bob the moo · 17 February 2007]

In 2004 political bloggers became an important factor in US politics. They helped Howard Dean move from a nobody to one of the main runners and also took on CBS News over the story of documents showing GW Bush getting an easy run in the military, essentially taking the story off the table. This documentary looks back at this formative time while also focusing on the Connecticut race for the senate in 2006, where liberal "netwoot" bloggers are a big part of making Ned Lamont a viable contender to incumbent Joe Liberman.

Considering how I spent my time on this site, it is perhaps ironic that I don't really read any blogs and have never written or contributed to any either. However the increasing power of the blog can be seen in them being featured in the Times or increasingly being brought into mainstream media and in looking at this power, this documentary is surprisingly interesting. For the majority of the running time, the focus on the Connecticut race allows this big world of ranting, debating, cataloguing etc to be examined at a level that makes sense. The film is at its best when it just documents the events across this period because it does make wider points while also showing the interesting actions which I was unaware of. The nature of the blogosphere is well shown in this example, with Lamont both strengthened and hurt by those acting in his name but without his control and I found it engaging and interesting (although not knowing what happened in the election probably helps).

The film is not as strong when it focuses on the people involved and it is telling that we don't get the detail of the blogs so much as just looking at their general impact. The people are not individually that interesting with Markos Moulitsas the only one that is really given a lot of time to provide insight. The film does well to balance the focus on the liberal blog with contributions from those on the right (and, although I don't agree with her political views, I did have to concede that Michelle Malkin is as stunning as she is well-spoken).

Overall then, not a perfect documentary but it does do a great of making this big world of blogs into an interesting subject. By stepping away from the nature of them and looking at their place within the bigger picture within a specific example the points are well made. The conclusion that the blogs are not yet all powerful but are certainly now a big part is in a way depressing (because of the polarising nature of the views in blogs) but also cheering in how it shows that the little guy can actually make a difference and is to be ignored at your peril. Regardless of your views, this is a good film to catch if you read or write political blogs.

Bloggin

[Holyteeth · 16 February 2009]

I think the Connecticut democratic primaries were a great example of the blogging culture right when it hit its stride - it showed the influence of blogging on our politics, and the players involved in political blogging.

It focused on Democratic blogging because the Democrats were the ones at the forefront of blogging. And are the ones to develop a real "Netroots" as they call them to counter corporate media.

It covers many of the local bloggers and some of the events that led to them disowning Lieberman.

It also shows some of the larger players like Markos of Daily Kos and Jane from Firedoglake.com who do blogging full time to create the forums and venues for campaigns to pick up steam and buzz.

As the other post mentioned the movie included conservative bloggers in its overview of the blogging world and also some of the traditional media players that look down on the blogging culture.

The episode with Dan Rather was clearly an attempt by the right wing to silence opposition to Bush during the war and showed that the truth can't protect even a long time reporter. Hardly an example of blogging triumph but an example of its controversial nature.

(Barely anyone knows that Laura bush is a drunk driver known to have killed someone from behind the wheel but of course everybody knows that Obama sat on the board with William Ayers - a member of the weatherman who committed his crimes when Obama was like twelve years old.) Clearly the other post here has a right wing bias to it mine obviously a left wing one.

The conservative bloggers are attractive while the liberal ones are immature? please.

And Andrew Sullivan is a conservative blogger not a traditional media journalist.

Ned Lamont was a better candidate than Joe Lieberman for 2006 when the Iraq war was the big Issue of the campaign season.

The lesson that blogger learned was one they already knew Joe Lieberman is in it for himself not for the Democratic Party - evidenced by Lieberman campaigning for McCain and standing on stage with him while Obama was called a terrorist. He ran as an independent and basically relied on Republicans, moderate democrats and name recognition to win the general election.

Sorry to go off in a political direction but the last post was filled with so many errors I felt the need to correct them.