You're right, I was way too harsh, and I apologize, but I still have a hard time with people who didn't vote for Vice President Gore in 2000 jumping on the Gore bandwagon now. I worked hard in 2000, and there was this dismissiveness of Vice President Gore by some professed progressives that left bad feelings. We knew what a great president Al Gore would make, but there was this stubborn resistance by people who should have known better.  Very frustrating.

How does it feel to wake up every day and realize you and others like you are responsible for George Bush being president?

"Scolds like Mrs. Clinton"? That is incredilby sexist, using the term "scolds"  - and that is Senator Clinton to you.  If you want to criticize her, fine, but leave the chauvinism at the door, please.

Thank you, that is very helpful. Since the cost is only about 12% of all the money that has been raised by the DNC, why is the state party rebuilding strategy even something that is the subject of this debate?  If it was 25% or higher, then I could understand the discussiion, but it doesn't sound to me like the 50 state strategy should even be an issue.

Yes, I am sure; the Post story that started this whole thing said $74,000,000 had been raised by the DNC in 2005 and 2006, with about $10,000,000 now in the bank.  That means about $64,000,000 has been spent.  If $10,000,000 has been spent on putting people on the ground in the states and training them (and since the program hasn't been up and running in its entirety the whole time, that number is on the high side), what has the other $44,00,000 been spent on?  I am not asking this question because I am opposed to Gov. Dean's 50 state strategy; I think it is a good thing to have staffers in every state, and he is right to fight for it.

I'd still like to know how much it is costing the DNC to have some staffers in every state.  Even if their salaries and benefits are $50,000 a year, with three in every state (if that is the right number), that is only $7,500,000 per year.  The news reports say that the DNC has "burnt" $60,000,000. Does anyone have any real knowledge of the actual amoung of money being spent on state staffers and what is being spent on other stuff?  

How much has putting DNC staffers on the ground in the states actually cost?  I've seen stories that the DNC has spent $60,000,000 in the last 15 months, or something like that, but how much has been spent on staffing the states?  

I am perplexed by the fighting that is going on around the DNC. The DNC has been jabbing at gays and lesbians. The DNC is fighting with the DCCC. While Gov. Dean is doing a good thing getting staff into the states, part of his job is also to keep the various parts Democratic family from beating up on each other.  And another thing - why are the state parties getting blamed for all the money being spent? The way I read that Post story, it sounds to me like an awful lot of money is being spent on consultants; not just the usual consultants, but the ones who make money off of direct mail and fundraising. The money going to the state parties seems like peanuts compared to the overall spending.

I don't know why the DNC isn't supporting putting a DC caucus after Iowa and before NH.  It would being a lot of attention to tbe lack of voting rights.  But I hear that Dean's people don't like the idea. I don't get it.  

This may sound like heresy, but Dean doesn't deserve all the credit you are giving him.  The DCCC and Rahm Emmanuel have been working very hard to find competitive candidates around the country.  Will the DCCC support every candidate financially?  No, they can't, but they have  found candidates who can win the seats necessary to take back the House.  Do I agree with all their decisions?  No. But give credit where credit is due - the DCCC has performed really well.