A few days ago I pointed out that the important fundraising numbers to compare are totals for the whole Democratic field vs. the whole Republican field. Comparing Dean to Bush is comparing apples to oranges. I don't expect most of the press to figure it out (my esteem for journalists and pundits, with very few exceptions, is very low), but it is good to see that someone at MSNBC is quoting someone who is thinking about this.

Democratic fund-raiser Simon Rosenberg, who heads the centrist New Democrat Network, put the Dean bounty in perspective by noting that in a 10-candidate field the former Vermont governor was able to raise 50 percent more than Bill Clinton raised in the best quarter of his 1996 re-election effort. Rosenberg called Dean’s feat "almost miraculous" and added, "We have to recognize that the Dean campaign is the best-run campaign we’ve ever seen."

Taking the party-wide view, Rosenberg pointed to what almost no one else has noticed: Based on the preliminary estimates for the third quarter, the 10-person Democratic field collectively will have outraised the Bush campaign, an indication of how fired up Democratic donors are.

"If Bush is this supposed fund-raising king, then this so-called 'weak' Democratic field — to use Karl Rove’s word — is outraising him," Rosenberg said.

Yeah, yeah. We here at Value Judgment noticed! It's not rocket science, people!