Like many political anoraks out there in cyberspace, I’ve been aware of the Bush AWOL allegation for years. The wider public though have not. The average citizen was probably unaware until the last week or so that there was any controversy about Bush’s military “service”. Now the story is part of the 24 hour news cycle and millions of Americans have learnt of their president’s possible criminal past. This turnaround shows two things: the incredible laziness of the mainstream US media and the considerable influence which Michael Moore wields.

Remember it was the man from Michigan who got the ball rolling when he called Dubya a “deserter” at a Wes Clark gig. All of a sudden the allegation was front page news and the subject of impassioned debate at White House press conferences. Why? The story is nothing new; it’s been around for years. No damning new evidence has come to light in recent weeks. It was all down to Moore.

For a time in 2002-3, Moore held a position of unique influence in US politics. In a country where the left has lacked a credible spokesperson, Moore fills a huge void. He asks questions which need to be asked and exposes injustice where others don’t bother to look. Crucially, he speaks in a clear and simple way to which “normal” people can relate. While many on the left are interested only in preaching to the converted, Moore pitches his spiel to the average person.

His popularity during this period can also be explained with reference to the weakness and servility of the Democratic Party. Since Bush was elected five votes to four he has run the US in a strident right-wing fashion. International treaties ripped up, civil liberties abused, tax cuts for the rich, big donors allowed to “self-regulate”, the list goes on and on. What was the Democrat’s response? With a few noble exceptions, Democrats on the Hill refused to stand up to Bush, to criticise his policies, even to vote against his measures. Democrats, thinking that, post 9-11, America didn’t want real opposition were the architects of their own defeat at the 2002 midterms.

Daschle and Gephardt may have lost the will to oppose but millions of others hadn’t. Much of the Democratic base was mad as hell at the way that Bush stole power and even madder with what he was doing with it. Into this breach stepped Michael Moore. Indeed there was a period when it seemed that Moore was the spokesperson for the “other” America, the only person on the airwaves calling Bush a liar and a cheat. Many of us outside the US looked on him as a lone voice of sanity in a country which seemed to be going mad.

And didn’t he enjoy the ride? “Stupid White Men”, “Bowling for Columbine”, booed at the Oscars, ah, those were the days. It wasn’t long after the Academy awards though that Moore’s position was usurped by a certain doctor from Vermont. At long last the Democrats produced someone who was angry, yes ANGRY, about the Iraq war. The emergence of Howard Dean took much of the spotlight from Moore.

I’m no psychiatrist but it could be that the loss of the limelight influenced Moore’s decision to endorse Clark rather than Dean. When Moore picked Depleted Uranium Clark as the next man to rule the world it seemed a curious choice. It still does today. At the time Dean was the frontrunner as well as a consistent opponent of the war from the start. Clark by contrast had never fought an election before and was pro-war yesterday, anti-war today. Why then pick the general over the doctor? Perhaps a little bit of “peace envy” about the new kid on the block who had all the lefties eating out of his hand? Only Moore knows the answer.

The fact that Moore’s deserter jibe caused such a stir is testament to his continuing influence. The fact that said jibe was delivered while stumping for a soon to be ex-candidate suggests that this influence has its limits.