Nat Williams I expected this documentary to lean left. I expected it to show all of Lee Atwater's warts. I expected it to shine a harsh light on the dirty campaign tactics that define modern politics. However, I wasn't prepared for the severe leftward tilt of its content. Goodness, if only we had known how angelic Michael Dukakis was, we wouldn't have elected him president, we would have proclaimed him pope! Viewing this film it becomes obvious that his political views and poor campaign had absolutely nothing to do with his landslide defeat. It was all because of that awful man from South Carolina and the millions of sheep who were tricked into voting for the vice president! It's a shame there couldn't have been more balance instead of a litany of complaints from defeated opponents and a condemnation of many of the same tactics used by Democrats. I would have preferred a more rounded look at the man and of politics in general, where both sides have committed their share of bashing, scheming and pandering.

Bill357 I'm not being sarcastic. I really did enjoy this film!I know this was supposed to be a political hit piece but much like antiwar movies, it makes the supposed subject of scorn seem pretty cool, while the Democrats end up looking like the principal on Ferris Bueller's Day Off.The truth is that Democrats bow at the alter of political correctness and can't stand people who don't and (especially ones from the north) can barely hold their contempt for Southerners. Lee Atwater was both politically incorrect and a southerner and that drove them all bonkers.They couldn't take away the fact that the complete waste of humanity, Willie Horton, really was one scary dude that actually committed the crimes for which he was convicted. For some strange reason, liberals cannot handle seeing any black person criticized for any reason, even rape and murder! To this viewer it appears that Atwater and his cronies judged Horton on the content of his character and told it like it is. He was a scary murderer who was let out on a weekend furlough, under a program supported by Dukakis. The accusations of racism look more like sour grapes to me.I especially liked the end where after his supposed conversion to liberalism and eventual death, that he never read his bible and wasn't really sorry. He did die an SOB after all!

bob the moo OK – bias declaration time here because this film is, by covering the material really well, a tad critical of the Republican party, so it helps if readers know at least where I approached it from. I am generally liberal but in the case of partisan films I will try and put that to one side, hence I can agree with Michael Moore's points but yet also see the massive flaws in many of his films. I say this because I enjoyed this film a great deal, finding it fascinating and am assuming that anyone who disliked the film will assume that I have simply toed the party line whether it was any good or not. I can assure you I have not!I came to this film on BBC4 in the UK (where it was called "Dirty Tricks: The Man Who Got the Bushes Elected") because I, like many, have an interest in how American politics operate. Fear seems to play a big part, as does the exaggeration of the importance of patriotism and patriotic symbols and it amazes me how it appears to work to convince people to apparently vote against their own interests because the Republican party is, like the UK conservative party, the party of the wealthy and the party of the rich. OK that is a sweeping generalisation that is not as true as it was (all major parties are the parties of the rich!) but it has some merit. This can be seen in the most recent elections where Obama is attacked as being elitist due to his education, while Bush is painted as a "good ol' boy" despite his massive wealth and Harvard education. Or how such a fuss was made over Obama's flag pin or not having his hand on his heart etc. To be blunt it can be seen how there was a constant suggestion about Obama's religion – which backfired wonderfully as McCain found his voters making racist statements ("he's an Arab") – like a monster that you have raised that suddenly turns on you.I wasn't initially interested in this as a subject though because I cynically assumed that things were always like this and didn't think that this approach would have had a founding father or a development. However what this film does that is so fascinating is the way it tells the story of the rise of Lee Atwater as an adviser to the Bush campaign and the tactics that brought him and his party success in the elections in such a clear way that you can see where his actions have led us. This allows the film to engage for those of us who have never heard of Atwell, because his relevance is obvious. To me I found the bigger picture to be much more interest than the man himself and as a result the film is less engaging at the start and end when it focuses on him as more of a man. Where it really is at its best is in the middle section where we are shown the approach of putting fear and patriotism onto the agenda and making them weapons to be used against Dukakis and in particular the racial element and the way that a rapist was essentially made his "running mate". It is here where you can see the damage and the sheer cruelty and deception of his game and it helps that Dukakis presents himself well because we feel much more sympathy for his failed campaign.Although the title suggests that this is about Lee Atwell himself, it is a much more effective look at the birth of a destructive but effective political approach that the Republican party continue to use and indeed the Democrats themselves have picked up, perhaps having learnt that fighting fire with fire is the only way ahead. The film remains focused on its subject and, while I would have liked another thirty minutes that follows the path that Rove and others continued down, it does still work as an effective look at the subject that allows the viewers to follow that path themselves.

paul2001sw-1 Much of what is worst in American politics is on display in the career of Lee Atwater, a bogeyman for Democrats he put to the sword with underhand tactics both offensive and dishonest. Two interesting things emerge from this documentary: firstly, that far from being an ideologue, Atwater played the game for its own sake, with a ruthless cynicism so naked as to almost be disarming: sometimes it's easy to love an unashamed rogue, even if that rogue does more harm than a conventional hypocrite. Secondly, although Atwater died (of a brain tumour) in the early 1990s, in many ways, George W. Bush is Atwater's legacy; and indeed, Karl Rove was Atwater's protégé. Michael Dukakis, floored by Atwater's dirtiest campaign, is an interesting interviewee here: he comes across as naive in expecting anything better, and maybe that's the saddest aspect of the way that Atwater changed politics. It's probably mistaken to assign too much influence to one man; but it's also possible to fear that the demon of spin will never return to the box.