Ahhhh, gotcha. Mea culpa.
I just got it yesterday, will be watching soon.
There are many aspects on which I could comment, but I will only comment on the four I feel most salient:
1) I think there is little comparison between D'Souza and Obama. D'Souza grew up in India, leaving when he was 18. Obama was born in the U.S. (something which even D'Souza admits), then moved abroad, then came back. On the aspect that they both grew up under post-colonial governments, I see only a modest overlap. Regarding the particulars about Obama's upbringing (absentee biological father, being raised by a single mom, then in a household with a step-father), D'Souza offers no parallel of his own. In the end, aside from the fact that they both have the same skin complexion, I really see little similarity between the two men.
2) I think the film is more enlightening about D'Souza's background, which became fully evident toward the end when he talked about a "United States of Islam." D'Souza was born and raised in Mumbai, a heavily Muslim area of India. D'Souza is a Christian apologist (en.wikipedia.org. Ultimately, I think D'Souza was wanting to make an anti-Muslim film, but much more on the sly than other recent *cough* films. I don't think this movie was so much about Obama, so much that it was about D'Souza's fears of a Muslim-controlled world.
3) I was disappointed in the source material, namely citing the two books D'Souza wrote. At the end D'Souza references the website for the movie, as well as his personal website. I guess I'll go to the library and look at the lists of works cited, but, frankly, I would find his arguments more credible had he cited more (and credible) sources. Perhaps this was a shorthand on his part, that he already had the references compiled, but other films (e.g., Zeitgeist) openly published their reference list. Coming from academia, I am holding D'Souza to a higher standard here. Then again, as Gramsci points out, the academics are often the first ones rounded up and put on the trucks.
4) Finally, as a political documentary piece, D'Souza uses the same underhanded tactics (the phone conversation reenactments, the questionable voice-overs, the "gotcha" interview moments, interviews with "select" people) that Michael Moore employs. I would have found D'Souza's general argument much more credible had he not done those sorts of things.
In the end, I see this film, in part, as trite propaganda. More so, I see it as a sad exercise in intellectual masturbation by some guy looking to make a buck while the going is good. I'm glad I only gave this guy whatever portion of my monthly Netflix fee went to the secondary release finances, etc.