Despite a deepening job slump and few signs that the recession that began in December 2007 is nearing an end, Americans have grown more optimistic about the U.S. economy and the country's direction in the 11 weeks since the inauguration of President Obama, the latest New York Times/CBS News poll shows.

Further, Americans approve of President Obama's handling of the economy, foreign policy, (wars in Iraq and Afghanistan), and two-thirds said they approved of his overall job performance.

The United States is preparing for a new year, and a new presidential administration -- one that has the potential to usher-in a rejuvenation of the U.S. economy, society, and culture, after nearly a decade of descent.

Still, that's not to say measures should not be taken to keep the Obama Administration and the Democrats honest. Now yours truly is not talking about the rhetorical observations and critiques of right-wing talk radio, which opposes seemingly everything from an increase in federal student loan programs to the rising of the sun in the east, but rather about techniques investors can use to make sure the Obama Administration remains true to its word -- i.e., to keep Obama and the Democrats honest.

Benchmark 1: The economy and job growth. Obama and the Democrats have promised a large fiscal stimulus package that invests in the nation's infrastructure and public institutions (schools, hospitals, civil administration buildings, parks), and that provides aid to the states, among other benefits. The fiscal stimulus package alone will not guarantee a return to robust economic growth and job creation, but it will point the U.S. economy in the direction of sustainable growth, with hundreds of thousands of jobs that will help 'prime the pump' for additional commercial activity. Hence, the U.S. economy and the stimulus package represent the top priority: any failure to deliver here would be a serious underperformance.

Tuesday's primary victories in Ohio, Texas and Rhode Island gave Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-New York, about all her campaign could hope for: solid performances and a chance to close the delegate gap in the next primary, in Pennsylvania on April 22.

Still, the delegate math remains rough for the candidate seeking to become the first woman nominated for president by a major U.S. political party. Sen. Barack Obama, D-Illinois, leads in delegates, 1477-1391, including pledged superdelegates, according to a Washington Post tally, and the Clinton campaign's strategy will now be to try to close the delegate gap to 60 or so with a win in Pennsylvania. Two caucuses, Wyoming and Mississippi, occur before the Pennsylvania primary, and Sen. Obama is expected to win each and increase his delegate lead heading into Pennsylvania.

In 187-delegate Pennsylvania, the demographics favor Sen. Clinton -- she's leading in statewide polls there - - and the Clinton campaign likes its chances. Pennsylvania has a large working class -- which, along with women voters and Latin-Americans, forms the bulk of Clinton's base. If Sen. Clinton registers a solid win in Pennsylvania, she can make the case that although Sen. Obama has the delegate lead, she has won in the major states of New York, California, Texas, Ohio and Pennsylvania, and probably would have won in Florida, had the delegate count been included in the Democratic Party's nominating process. That big-state coalition, and the fact that she's the candidate of the working class, would be two strong philosophical points as the campaign attempts to secure pledges from the to-date 353 un-pledged superdelegates. (Note: The number of un-pledged delegates is likely to decline by the end of the primary season on June 3.)

In an appearance on NBC's Meet The Press (NYSE: GE), political analyst James Carville cited analysis that would please a political scientist regarding the factors likely to shape the 2008 presidential election, as his prediction was consistent with the most accurate theory regarding voting behavior. (Note: Carville has provided political advise to Sen. Hillary Clinton's campaign to secure the Democratic Party's 2008 nomination for president.)

Carville said that objective economic events in this election cycle favor the party out of power. Those objective economic events? The housing slump, higher energy and food costs, and anemic job growth, conditions that are "presenting real economic hardship for many Americans." (Or as Carville would put it, in the 2008 election, as in the 1992 election, "It's the economy, stupid.")

A colleague based in Washington, D.C. recalled that moment in the 1960 presidential campaign when Kennedy's campaign staff knew that John F. Kennedy would defeat Richard Nixon. It occurred that fall, just before their first televised debate -- the first presidential debate ever broadcast on television.

The then Sen. Kennedy, a Democrat, was fresh from a vacation at the Kennedy Compound at Hyannis on Cape Cod, Massachusetts. He was bronzed from days spent sailing in the sun, and he was well rested. He looked like a Greek sculpture.

Conversely, the then Vice President Nixon, a Republican, looked ashen, tomb-stone white, with deep-set eyes from weeks of campaigning.

And as is the norm before a show, the TV producer asked Kennedy if he wanted some make-up.

"Nah, I don't want any make-up," Kennedy said, and motioned off the make-up man with his hand.

Nixon, perhaps trying to match Kennedy, and despite his sweaty face, refused make-up, as well.

It is not a revelation to state that Sen. Hillary Clinton's (D-New York) campaign has stumbled and is reeling.

It would be a revelation to argue that despite all of the advantages that public policy experience, party apparatus, and political contributions affords, Hillary Clinton could lose the 2008 Democratic Party Nomination, and to an upstart at that.

When one is trained in public policy and economics, you tend to view the world, at least the economic and political worlds, through a social science prism, and with that lens one can detect three Clinton campaign errors that have led to the current nomination process state-of-things.

The economy
To-date, the Clinton campaign has failed to emphasize Clinton's biggest strength: how she would fix an ailing U.S. economy. Clinton has at least five policy proposals that speak directly to what many Americans need economically; she'll have to emphasize these to secure the nomination.

On Super Tuesday, as the United States approaches its first $1 billion election, the chorus sounds a familiar refrain.

The conventional wisdom regarding campaign spending -- that the U.S. is spending too much on campaigns, or that certain groups have too much influence -- reminds me of what Mark Twain said about the the public's attitude toward the weather: "Everybody complains about the weather, but no one ever seems to be able to do something about it."

While some would argue that campaign spending is not a problem, for the sake of argument let's assume that the conventional wisdom on campaign spending is valid. The next logical question would be, what changes could and should we make to the current campaign spending laws?

Limits on campaign spending? The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that Congress and regulators can do this, but only up to a degree, as beyond a certain point it violates the First Amendment's free speech right.

The presidential race is started to come into focus ahead of next week's Super Tuesday primaries.

Democrat John Edwards, whose anti-corporate message never resonated with most voters, is dropping out of the race after failing to win the primary in his native South Carolina, according to media reports. Rudy Giuliani, who fell from presumptive front-runner to also-ran, also is expected to bow out and endorse rival John McCain.

Odds are that Edwards will endorse rival Barack Obama, adding to the growing list of backers which include Democratic stalwart Sen. Edward Kennedy. The Illinois senator is far from having the race locked up.

[Note: This is the second of a two-part series on the race for the Democratic Party's nomination for president of the United States. Read part one: Obama's New Hampshire strength highlights Clinton's vulnerablity]

Clinton's mistakes

Why didn't Clinton win by a bigger margin in the New Hampshire primary? The main reason was a misguided campaign strategy that presented her in too many town meetings and gymnasium forums, and not enough as a concerned, positive, relating, trustworthy leader and as a real person. Clinton has never been accused of not being intelligent or organized or professional: what she has been accused of is lacking that "likability" and "press the flesh" quality that every modern presidential candidate -- and every president -- must display.

Ironically, Hillary Clinton's campaign strategy in Iowa and New Hampshire departed from President Bill Clinton's winning presidential campaign strategy. What was an example of President Clinton's positive vibe? During his campaigns, when Bill Clinton arrived at a location for a speech and there were 400 people lined up outside of the hall, who couldn't get in, waiting to see the candidate, Bill Clinton wanted to shake the hands of all 400 people outside. No joke. Clinton would arrive one hour, two hours late for an event, if it meant he could shake hands and make positive, personal contact with as many people as possible. Hillary Clinton must do the same: she must be real, show that she cares, and show that's she's human, just like everybody else. That's a big part of what Hillary Clinton must do to move forward and win the Democratic Party's nomination.

There's an old political adage that goes, "Regarding the nomination process, Republicans fall in line, Democrats fall in love." Tuesday's New Hampshire primary provided ample evidence of the above, for each party.
Sen. Barack Obama's (D-IL) strong showing instantaneously catapults him to formidable contender status in the Democratic race. His performance also suggests -- and we won't know this empirically until survey research has been analyzed -- that he has expanded the electorate. Obama increased voter turnout particularly, and unexpectedly, among voters ages 18-21. This age group has had the lowest turnout rate of any age group in primaries and presidential elections since 1952 when political scientists began keeping statistics.

Obama's appeal among independents was also high, and -- also troubling for the campaign of Sen. Hillary Clinton (D-NY) -- his appeal among Democratic Party-affiliated voters was much stronger than expected. Furthermore, African-American voters -- although not a major factor in New Hampshire -- now appear to be shifting decidedly in his direction nationally, a big change from the previously overwhelming support they gave to Clinton as late as this summer. As a result of the latter, look for the Clinton camp to face a markedly tougher fight in the South Carolina primary, which is the next hurdle, along with Nevada, before Tsunami Tuesday (formerly called Super Tuesday), on February 5.

Remember how they used to say that the sun never set on the British empire. The same goes for talk show queen Oprah Winfrey's empire.

In an era when most media conglomerates struggle, Winfrey has the midas touch, which is why her endorsement of Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama may have a huge impact on the election. Her continuing presence at the pop culture zeitgeist is nothing short of remarkable.

Ratings for "The Oprah Winfrey Show" remain strong. When she got 100 plus members of the Osmond clan on her program on November 12 following the death of patriarch George, she scored her best ratings since the prior January, according to Broadcast and Cable. During the week ended November 25, Her protege Dr. Phil McGraw earned a 5.5 rating, trailing Winfrey's show, which got a 5.7, but her ratings included Thanksgiving while his didn't, the trade publication says.

Documentaries like Maxed Out and In Debt We Trust have looked the problem of ever-growing consumer debt, and the role that government has played in its expansion.

Now , Senator and Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama wants Washington to play a role in the solution too. Here are some clips from a statement Obama issued, as well as a discussion he had with debt counselors and consumers burdened with heavy debt. Courtesy of The Associated Press:

"The truth is, our middle-class families are not going to be secure so long as they can't get out of debt. If we're serious about stopping Americans from falling deeper in debt, we've got to crack down on predatory credit card companies that are pushing them over the edge....

"Many credit card companies are tricking Americans into agreements they can't afford because that's how they make big profits. Well, no company's bottom line should come before what's right for the American people."

Obama proposes a credit card bill of rights. From the Senator's website:

Sources close to CNN broadcast journalist/commentator Lou Dobbs said he is seriously considering a run for the U.S. presidency in 2008, The Wall Street Journal reported.

Dobbs, who formerly hosted CNN's MoneyLine business news show and currently hosts CNN's Lou Dobbs Tonight has seen both his ratings and his name recognition rise after his work's focus turned away from news reporting and anchoring and toward political and economic commentary.

Dobbs, an independent, displays an ideology and a political world view that many have characterized as a modified hybrid of Ralph Nader and Pat Buchanan -- i.e. populism combined with strong views against free trade (or current trade frameworks) and against illegal immigration.

Dobbs is a frequent critic of both the Democratic and Republican parties, which he argues don't represent the interests of the typical person or the middle class. His show's website describes him as "an independent populist and the leading media advocate for working men and women, their families, our middle class and the American way of life."

Political Analysis: Unless there's a tidal wave of discontent in the American electorate not tallied by pollsters, Dobbs, as a third-party candidate or as an Independent, has virtually no chance of being elected president of the United States. Although his name recognition is rising and he has a positive public image, it's highly unlikely Dobbs could assemble the campaign staff and money required to compete effectively against Democratic and Republican parties' nominees.

However, this is not to say that Dobbs could not broaden the discourse, i.e. "force the discussion of less-publicized issues" during a debate. Dobbs could accomplish this, but it must be emphasized that making points in a debate is a much easier task than receiving enough votes to win the electoral college vote for U.S. president.

The official election is more than a year away; but the Democratic party is trouncing the Republics in the CEO money primary. According to Bloomberg News, some of George W. Bush's top 2004 fund-raisers, are now helping Democrats running for president.

Among the 60 executives writing checks to Democrats such as Senators Hillary Clinton of New York and Barack Obama of Illinois are these formerly pro-Bush CEOs:

• Morgan Stanley's (NYSE: MS) CEO John Mack, a Bush Ranger, held a fund-raiser for Clinton in July. He wrote to his executives "I personally believe that [the best] person [running for president in 2008] is Hillary Clinton."
• Yahoo Inc.'s (NASDAQ: YHOO) former CEO Terry Semel gave $2,000 to Bush in 2004 and $50,000 to the Republican National Committee. Semel has given the maximum, $4,600, to Clinton and $2,300 to Obama.
• News Corp. (NYSE: NWS) CEO Rupert Murdoch, who donated $25,000 to the Republican National Committee in 2004, has given Clinton $2,300.

I can't believe that CNBC is seriously debating the question about whether Democrats are "rooting for a recession." This is what happens when pundits run amuck on a slow news day.

Most of this "discussion" consisted of cranky Republican pundit Lawrence Kudlow yelling at the other panelists who pointed out the stupidity of the premise.

Here's a sample of his remarks:

• "If the Democrats ever discover the benefits of the investor class, they might win a national race," he said in a typical remark.
• "George W. Bush is not on the ballot."
• "The problem is that they don't have any pro-growth policies."
• "The public will not elect a Walter Mondale type-canditate."

John Bogle, the founder of Vanguard, pointed out on CNBC that that Bush and his allies in Congress have take on "staggering" additional expenses that have to be paid with actual money. Good point.

Plus, the Democrats aren't as anti-business as conservatives suggest. Remember, times were pretty good during the Clinton administration for CNBC's parent General Electric Co. (NYSE: GE) and lots of other businesses during the 1990s.

Businesses aren't oblivious to the President Bush's staggering unpopularity. They are making nice with the Democrats such as Hillary Clinton in a way that would have been unthinkable back in 2001. Investors better wake up to the fact that chances are good that a Democrat will win the White House in 2008.

If that happens, the world won't end.