After the second quarter fundraising numbers of the Presidential candidates were announced there was a general din (if not genuine glee) among the Popular Press that the total amount raised by the Dems (about twice that of the Republicans) was a financial asteroid aimed at the heart of the GOP.
Ok. You already know all that, but what you may not know is that at the national committee level, the Republican National Committee is kicking the Democratic National Committee's … wallet pocket.
Unlike Presidential campaigns which report every quarter, the national committees report every month.
In the month of June, the Republican National Committee raised about $6.4 million. For the month. The DNC raised about $4.1 million. For June.
So what? The GOP had a short spurt which got them a couple of million more in June? So this: If you look at fundraising for the cycle, the RNC has out-raised the DNC about $45 million to about $28 million. A fundraising edge for the GOP of $17 million.
Need more? How about the ever-popular Cash on Hand number? Howard Dean and his DNC enters the second half of 2007 with CoH of a touch under $5 million. The GOP goes into the second half with Cash on Hand of nearly $16 million.
Oh, you hadn't heard this? Why, I'm shocked.
Last number: The Democratic Committee has a debt of $2 million. The RNC has a debt of … Zero. So, in reality the CoH differential is not 16-5. It is really 16-3 something on the order of a five-fold edge.
If Republican donors are angry, exhausted, anti-Bush, and anti-Iraq, what does that say about Democratic donors?
The Brookings Institution is a Washington think tank which has been described by Time Magazine as being "traditionally considered liberal" sent two researchers to Iraq to report on how well - or how badly - things are going there.
They published there findings in an op-ed piece in the New York Times which is not, lately, been a cheerleader for the war in Iraq.
According to a New York Daily News editorial, the two analysts, Michael O'Hanlon and Kenneth Pollack "have been harshly critical of the war's prosecution in the past.
But now, these harshly critical, left-leaning analysts are saying things like,
"After the furnace-like heat, the first thing you notice when you land in Baghdad is the morale of our troops … Today, morale is high. The soldiers and marines told us they feel that they now have a superb commander in Gen. David Petraeus; they are confident in his strategy, they see real results, and they feel now they have the numbers needed to make a real difference."
To be fair, the pair writes that the "situation in Iraq remains grave" especially on the political front. But the title of the piece is: "A War We Just Might Win."
What about the Democrats in Congress? Cheers? Shouts of joy? Hats thrown in the air? Claps on the back of Republican colleagues?
The WashingtonPost.com ran an interview conducted by Washington Post über-reporter Dan Balz and Chris Cillizza of WashingtonPost.com with Democratic Congressman James Clyburn of South Carolina who also happens to be the House Majority Whip.
Balz asks Clyburn:
"What do Democrats do if General Petraeus comes in in September, and says, 'This is working very, very well at this point. We would be foolish to back away from it'?"
Clyburn responds - send this to everyone you know -
"Well, that would be a real big problem for us, no question about that."
No, Jim. No. That would not be a "real big problem." That would be what most non-medicated people would refer to as "good news."
Note - and I am not overstating this for political purposes - the Number Three Guy in the Democratic Caucus is, in effect, rooting for failure in Iraq for purely political purposes.
Two stories you may have missed. Because they are two stories which are "real big problems" for the Democrats.