Better Late than Never?

E.J. Dionne, Jr. has a good, though many months late op-ed piece in the Washington Post today.

Bill Clinton's eruption on "Fox News Sunday" last weekend over questions about his administration's handling of terrorism was a long time coming and has political implications that go beyond this fall's elections.

By choosing to intervene in the terror debate in a way that no one could miss, Clinton forced an argument about the past that had up to now been largely a one-sided propaganda war waged by the right. The conservative movement understands the political value of controlling the interpretation of history. Now its control is finally being contested.

Of course Democrats waited nearly FIVE FUCKING YEARS to do this. In that HALF A DECADE a lot of opinions became firmly set. The narrative has already been set and largely accepted.

There are signs of life (and signs of spines) in the Democratic party for the first time since I became politically aware. I wonder, is it too little too late?

There are a lot of Progressives so disillusioned with the Democratic Party that they talk about finding 'other ways' to work towards Progressive and Liberal ideals. I think that's foolish. We are where the Republicans were 30 years ago. We need to slowly change the Democratic party in the same (structural) way that the Republicans have in the last quarter century. We need to build a support structure, an information distribution arm, and we need to ensure that Democrats running for office from state level Representatives to President are strong Progressives. We're working towards that. (I hope.)

But what will America look like by the time we catch up?

EJ Dionne Democrats History Bill Clinton

"Path to 9/11"

I would like to quote a Mr. Ed Gillespe, RNC Chairman:

And I think it was important that it be historically accurate. And if they didn't intend to make it historically accurate to make sure
that viewers understood that it was not intended to be historically accurate but a fictional portrayal. So we made two requests: One is having historians review it for accuracy if you're going to broadcast it. And if you're unwilling to do that, inform the viewers that it's not historically accurate. That's not censorship, that's common sense...

He was talking about the successfully deterred CBS mini-series "The Reagans" but I think the point still holds.

I've spent the last few hours going crazy emailing people and running up my cell phone bill about this. This diary at DailyKos has the email address and phone number of every person or organization involved. Please, make use of them all but if you're short on time, here's a few form letters:

The Democratic Party

Think Progress

ABC's 'Contact Us' page

ABC has stated that it would, "continue to make edits to strengthen a project right up to the broadcast date." I guess they realized that some of the people involved (say, Bill Clinton) might sue them later...

Path to 9/11 ABC Ed Gillespe Bill Clinton

GOP in Trouble? Blame Clinton!

The Senate Majority Leader, Bill Frist, had this to say about the high gas prices on the Today Show:

"“It'’s a matter supply and demand. Right now we would have increase supply if [drilling in the wildlife refuge] had not been vetoed by President Clinton."” [video]

Ignoring some of those pesky facts (ANWR has only enough oil for 12 months of U.S. Consumption and peak production would only be 1-2% U.S. Total) let's examine thargumentent.

The actions of the last President, over half a decade ago, is the cause of price jumps - not George W. Bush's threats of sanctions (or war) against one of the world's top three oil producers. A veto by Bill Clinton is the onlyreason drilling hasn't started in ANWR, not the fact that there wasn't enough votes in a Republican controlled Congressto send a similar bill to Republican President George W. Bush anytime in the ensuing five years.

Gas Prices Bill Frist Bill Clinton ANWR