So Goes the Nation | 
 enlarge | Directors: Adam Del Deo, James D. Stern
Actors: George W. Bush, John Kerry, Mary Beth Cahill, Terry Mcauliffe, Ed Gillespie
Studio: IFC Film
Category: Movie
Buy New: $9.99
Rating:  9 reviews
Sales Rank: 36082
Genre: Art House
Rating: NR (Not Rated)
Media: Video On Demand
Running Time: 91 Minutes
Release Date: May 19, 2008
Availability: Usually ships in 1-2 business days
| |
| Synopsis:
This riveting documentary examines Ohio's pivotal role in the historic 2004 Presidential Election between John Kerry and George W. Bush. |
| Similar Items:
|
| Customer Reviews: Read 4 more reviews...
 Everything's as it was, except you are there November 4, 2008
J. L LaRegina (New Jersey)
SO GOES THE NATION takes us to Ohio for the final days leading up to the 2004 presidential election. Its most compelling moments feature volunteers for the campaigns of John Kerry and George W. Bush, soldiering on, political bullets flying overhead. Other perspectives come post-election day from interviews with Democratic and Republican Party officials.
What SO GOES THE NATION lacks is the filmmakers' perspective. For example, it only hints at the ugly truths that cost John Kerry the official vote count. When I saw this D.V.D. recently at the public library, I wondered why I had not heard of it. After seeing SO GOES THE NATION's timid take on Republican suppression of likely Kerry voters in the Buckeye State, I understood why most word of mouth was probably two syllables - "Skip it."
Nonetheless, credit SO GOES THE NATION for taking us into the hearts and souls of ordinary people working hard for the Kerry and Bush campaigns in which they believe. Watching those volunteers' spirits soar and dip (Kerry) and dip and soar (Bush) on Election Day 2004 I compare it to true-storytelling such as APOLLO THIRTEEN, where we already know what happens yet suspense builds anyway.
 An excellent film for anyone interested in American politics April 14, 2008
Christopher Marlow (London, England)
An engrossing and well-structured film that succinctly explains Bush's victory in Ohio, and thus the United States in the presidential election of 2004. The film's use of three main characters to frame the narrative gives the film a personal quality, and prevents it from becoming a dry recitation of facts that poorer documentaries often become.
As a non-American, I heartily recommend this film to anybody with an interest in American politics, and how electioneering there differs from other English-speaking countries.
Another day, another documentary on the Iraq war.... December 3, 2007
Grigory's Girl (NYC)
1 out of 5 found this review helpful
After watching this on IFC, I have grown supersaturated by Iraq War documentaries and/or political documentaries. This one really doesn't cover anything a seasoned political junkie doesn't know, and honestly, unless your Michael Moore who has a big name and box office muscle, your documentary is only going to be seen by political junkies who just want their opinions confirmed by films like this.
Yes, Bush lied about the Iraq War, and he used patriotism and other wedge issues to drive the American people apart. His favorite was the usually reliable gay marriage, even though it may surprise people that there is a federal law already on the books banning it. It was called the Defense of Marriage Act, and it was signed by none other than Bill Clinton. For the record, John Kerry was one of 12 Senators to vote against it. Yes, Karl Rove used this to his advantage, and yes, most of the American people fell for it. I've heard this all before on Air America Radio, progressive blogs, etc., etc.. This film really offers nothing new except dragging out the old culprits (like Terry McCauliffe, the horrid DNC chair who presided over many losing election for nearly 10 years until the Dems decided it might be time for a change after the 2004 debacle. McCauliffe was voted out, but not without a struggle).
The main point of this documentary is that what the GOP was morally reprehenisble and wrong. However, in a political season, you have to fight hard, and yes, you have to get dirty (real politics isn't like The West Wing TV show). The Dems didn't. Kerry ran one of the most incompetent, horrendous campaigns in modern history. He was not a very good candidate (I'm sorry, he is stiff and rather boring), and he simply thought that by not being George W. Bush, he would win. He rarely went after Bush (Bush's name was hardly mentioned during the Dem convention in 2004). Kerry voted for the war, then voted against an appropriations bill (there is footage here of Kerry in front of a veterans' crowd where he uttered the infamous line "I voted for the 87 billion before I voted against it"). They cut to GOP operatives after this, and they all basically say "thank you, John Kerry, for giving us this line.".
Karl Rove and his GOP minions used this line ad nauesum in their ad attacks. Many hate Rove, and think he's an evil genius. He's pretty damn evil, but most political operatives are generally not very nice. And he isn't a genius. He's an opportunist, and he took advantage of a rotten Kerry campaign. Kerry did himself no favours by voting for the Iraq War resolution (everyone knew that Bush wanted a war, the resolution was purely political theater), and by allowing the Swiftboaters to trash his military record and not say anything. And when it came time to contest Ohio, Kerry buckled. He didn't do a damn thing. I do think there were some shenanigans about, but when you say "I'm going to make sure every vote is counted", and then concede when some votes obviously weren't counted, you're not exactly instilling confidence. Rove took advantage of all these, and the Dems and Kerry should have known that Rove would do this. He's done it his whole life. This isn't news. It's common sense.
This documentary is no different than any other documentary that has been made about the run up to the war. Everyone and their grandmother seems to have one, and they really don't change people's minds, and just preach to the choir. If you're a political junkie that wants to hear for the umpteenth time that Bush is bad and the Iraq War is bad, rent/buy this.
I am really no longer outraged by docs such as this. Perhaps it's deep cynicism on my part, or maybe I don't think these things really do any good.
Far too limited September 4, 2007
Timothy P. Scanlon (Hyattsville, MDUSA)
3 out of 10 found this review helpful
I was hoping for a balanced appraisal of the 2004 election towards which I express countless doubts. (Look on the Project Censored web page as to the many things that MUST have happened if we are to believe that Dubya won legitimately in '04). In that sense, this DVD was a real letdown.
I'll start, however, by admitting that the film did have its positive attributes. I agree, for example, that Kerry could have campaigned more strongly. A Marine officer friend of mine and I talked on how we would have responded to that obscene Swift Boat nonsense. First, those who perjured their way through it should have been tried for treason, and Kerry should have confronted them right off--use it against them like Clinton had been able to do. That's one of several examples of items on which I do agree with the film.
Overall, my biggest disappointment is that the film didn't address the superficiality of the whole electoral process. Yes, the GOP used fear, they used religious right "values," particularly same-sex marriage (even when it was completely irrelevant to the lives of those who were confronted with it), and on and on. But, WHAT'S THE MATTER WITH THAT? The matter is that those who vote are so out of touch with the issues that it's not funny. Their lack of touch is a result of many things. My in-laws, for example, are so completely ideological--their issue is abortion--that nothing else exists. Others don't have the time. Still others are marginlized by events of nonexistant importance such as sports. One could list countless others. But in order for a democracy to exist, the people need to have some grasp of the issues. Those in power--of both parties--thrive on us not knowing anything, thereby transferring our "power" to those in power. To use completely superficial toys to win elections doesn't enhance democracy, it threatens democracy, demeans it. Sure, that's a brief summary but I don't have much space here.
There was also not enough focus on how the white districts in Ohio, the ones most likely to vote for the GOP, had plenty of voting machines, while the ones in the less-white districts, the ones with a clear Democratic majority, had too few machines so the voters had to wait for hours so many left without voting. That's something John Conyers suggested in his book. Yet the film implied clearly that that was NOT a problem.
Another critic rightfully compared Ohio's secretary of state with Kathrine Harris, the one in Florida who stole the election in 2000--a fact that history confirms! There wasn't enough in the film about that fiasco, except that one young Democratic campaigner was really ticked off that a public official could be so blatantly partisan--and, I contend, criminal.
Oh, and the way the GOP used some of Kerry's traits against him, you could complain about Kerry as he is somewhat responsible for that. But what about blaming the GOP--Remember, they're the ones who used Willie Horton back in 1988?--for their complete lack of integrity in their sort of mudslinging.
Frankly, I was disappointed with many of the Democrat bigwigs they talked to in the film. Some of them must expect that there's nothing wrong with an electoral system of such sleeze. They suggested they might have used the sleeze issues better too. Yeah, one guy--forgive me for forgetting his name now--did get pretty graphic in describing Dubya's tax cuts, how they affect someone like Paris Hilton, for example, while the waitress who's serving Hilton her $10 latte and makes $25,000 a year, pays more taxes than before. There were also implications of the FACT that Bush comes from a far, far more affluent background even than Kerry, and the media barely touched on it. But the commentator also stated that the Bush campaign was classy and effective, not degenerate, perverted, and inappropriate for ANY place that calls itself "democratic."
Many of those interviewed,even Democrats, praised Dubya for his campaign brilliance. Nonsense. Dubya couldn't argue his way out of an Air Force physical. He, like Reagan, was the tool of the neocon ideologues who control his immage, e.g., Karl Rove. And anyone with an IQ over 60 knows it. The film didn't address that, but gave Dubya much, much more credit than he deserved. So now the whole country looks like a bunch of bumbling idiots.
Anyway, while watching this, I thought a lot of the fabulous Bageant book, "Deer Hunting with Jesus," which I've recommended in these pages. Yes, I understand now how some of those folks vote. But what's important is to make those people more aware of the issues, to "educate" them, not to accept a society in which the marginalized continue to vote for their further marginalization!
If we don't do so, neither party is representing a democracy, and both are doing little more than staging a second-rate quiz show.
So Goes The Nation May 30, 2007
Dennis G. Lagory
3 out of 3 found this review helpful
An even-handed, perceptive and compelling view of the 2004 presidential campaign. Must viewing for anyone interested in American politics.
|
|
|
