This article was originally meant to consist of a review of the latest Michael Moore documentary Fahrenheit 9/11; Moore’s view on the events leading up to the recent war in Iraq, but more pointedly, and arguably more importantly Moore’s polemic about George W. Bush.

The film has been on general release in the UK now for some weeks but a limited number of prints supplied to cinema franchises means that there is a queue of cinema managers now waiting to show this film in their theatres. As a result Fahrenheit 9/11 has not yet made it to the local Plaza but I am assured it "will do soon"…

The wait is not surprising. Like Moore’s ‘Bowling for Columbine’ the oscar winning documentary about America’s gun culture, Fahrenheit 9/11 has broken all box office records for a documentary film in whichever country it has been released - a phenomenal achievement.

One can understand why the film should arouse such excitement in the United States - the subject of the film is their President after all - but it’s a little more difficult to understand the hype surrounding this film outside of the metropolitan capitals of Europe. Why is the manager of a West Cumbrian cinema - possibly about as unmetropolitan an area as can be found in any modern western country - desperately trying to get his hands on this film? Answer: because people want to see it.

Why do people want to see it? Because more than any other non-UK election, the 2004 US Presidential Election is rapidly becoming the most talked about, divisive, closely fought election in modern times. This is due to the Bush factor.

Let me be blunt, I have little time for knee-jerk anti-Americanism (or anti-Americans) - I can never quite figure out whether this form of jingoism has is rooted in jealousy or a long held grudge dating back over 200 years. With this in mind though, criticism of the American government or aspects of American culture is fair - and is not the same as anti-Americanism. Similarly opposition to US policy where it affects us is not anti-American, it’s politics (and let’s face it there’s currently plenty to oppose).

With those caveats out of the way let me admit to being a passionate pro-American (as well as a pro-European) and an anorak of American politics to boot. Like practically everyone whom I speak to about November’s Presidential elections, I want to see John Kerry move into the White House in January 2005 - but unlike most of the people I speak to, I don’t think that will happen.

I could write about the electoral effects of ‘War Time Presidents’, I could illustrate the fanatical support for Bush amongst the (growing) religious right in the Bible Belt of the United States and I could go into detail over hanging chads and voter intimidation, but those issues would only be important were there not one, imponderable, unfathomable, unbelievable obstacle to a Kerry victory this November: Ralph Nader.

The Independent ‘Green’ candidate and consumer rights champion will again be standing for election this November. In 2000 he took just enough votes from Al Gore to give the Presidency to Bush - irrespective of the scandalous revelations which followed concerning the minutiae of the American voting system. Nader won for Bush in 2000 and he will win for Bush in 2004.

I hope I’m wrong, we’ll soon see.