This post is part of our feature on Money Losers of 2008. See all 20.

Willard Mitt Romney, governor of Massachusetts from 2003 to 2007, was the wealthiest of all the 2008 presidential candidates. When he formally announced his candidacy for the Republican nomination for president on February 13, 2007, the former venture capitalist was believed to have amassed a fortune worth as much as $250 million.

After the first fundraiser for his presidential campaign committee on January 9, 2007, Romney had already brought in $6.5 million, more than the amounts raised by any other Republican contender. Meg Whitman, CEO of eBay and a former colleague of Romney, signed on as a financial co-chair of his presidential campaign. And first quarter 2007 fund-raising information showed Romney leading the Republican field with more than $23 million, though that was less than funds raised by Democratic contenders Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama in the same period. Fund-raising results for the second quarter revealed that Romney had lent $8.9 million to his campaign from his personal funds, as well as that he had spent $20.7 million, more than any other Republican candidate. By the end of 2007, he had raised $88.5 million, but $35.4 million of that came from his own pocket.

Winning the money race, strategically outspending other candidates on advertising in the early primary states, and promising to donate his salary as president to charity (as he had done as governor) wasn't enough to secure Romney the nomination. He dropped out of the race after disappointing Super Tuesday results in February 2008, when opponent John McCain solidified his position as the party's frontrunner. Romney won only 11 state primaries and caucuses, 4.7 million votes, and 291 delegates. According to Federal Election Commission filings, all told, the campaign spent $113.6 million, $44.6 of which came from Romney himself.

John McCain has made several unexpected moves during his campaign. For instance, he picked Alaska Governor Sarah Palin as his vice president. After an initial surge of support, her charming personality has given way to revelations about her lack of familiarity with the issues and Troopergate -- which led a bipartisan committee to conclude that she violated an Alaskan law prohibiting abuse of power. Now McCain may be questioning whether this maverick move hurt him more than it helped.

McCain also decided to suspend his campaign last month to deal with the financial crisis. Coincidentally, this decision came just a few days before McCain was to debate his opponent during a week when he was down in the polls. As it turns out, McCain resumed his campaign in time for the debate but without fixing the crisis. Did this maverick move strengthen McCain's image as a strong, effective leader?

At the end of a week in which the S&P 500 fell over 18%, more than it ever has in any previous week in history, some in the Republican party are questioning whether McCain's campaign is functioning as well as it could. Former Massachusetts governor, Mitt Romney, has suggested that what McCain needs is a "broad vision of how he would lead the country through the economic crisis," according to the New York Times. This comment suggests a maverick move that McCain could take to revive his chances: replace Palin with Romney.

In what I feared might become a regular feature here, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) arranged for the takeover of the 11th failed bank of 2008 on Friday. As I posted, the FDIC likes to close banks on Friday after hours so they can reopen as branches of the acquiring bank on the following Monday morning. According to the Associated Press, the bank in question is Nevada's Silver State Bank.

Nevada State Bank of Las Vegas will take over the insured deposits of Silver State -- which had $2 billion in assets and $1.7 billion in deposits at the end of June. AP reports that "[Silver State's] branches will reopen Monday as offices of Nevada State Bank in Nevada and National Bank of Arizona in Arizona."

John McCain's son, Andrew, who is also CFO of his mom's beer distributorship, "sat on the boards of Silver State Bank and of its parent, Silver State Bancorp, starting in February but resigned in July citing 'personal reasons.' Andrew McCain also was a member of the bank's audit committee, responsible for oversight of the company's accounting," according to AP.

Whatever your political ideology happens to be, I think we can all agree on one thing: Given the complex economic issues currently facing our country -- many of which will continue to be important for the foreseeable future -- our next president must be someone who understand economics.

To that end, the latest issue of Barron's looks at the backgrounds of each candidate (subscription required), showing something troubling: McCain's financial expertise is pretty much limited to having married a rich woman. That's a good strategy to be sure, but not necessarily the best background for someone charged with dealing with the current mess. Advising struggling homeowners to scan the obituaries in search of newly widowed socialites might not go over well.

Then there's Barack Obama whose experience in the market is, according to Barron's, pretty much limited to having once lost $13 thousand on stocks acquired through a blind trust. Barron's writes that "Small wonder he's giddy to raise taxes on interest and dividends. Obama has little skin in the game ... He's as insulated from his own dividend and capital gains proposals as a penguin is from the cold."

Hillary Clinton's net worth is very high, but she owns little stock. Her experience on the board of directors at Wal-Mart (NYSE: WMT) is intriguing but, looking at the available information, one thing is clear: None of these candidates can be considered an economics expert, something that we badly need, although George W. Bush's MBA from Harvard did little to avert the current mess.

Perhaps we'll get our economics expert from the other half of the presidential ticket. Private equity titan Mitt Romney is rumored to be a possible pick for John McCain, and there is some speculation that Barack Obama could pair up with New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg.

Former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney, who proved that presidential politics is a lousy investment, is poised to endorse Republican front-runner and his one-time rival John McCain, according to the New York Times.

This is hardly a shock.

Republicans, with the exception of Mike Huckabee and Ron Paul, are rallying around the Arizona senator who is their party's best hope of keeping the White House. The GOP has a lousy history, though, with Arizona senators running for president. Barry Goldwater was trounced by Lyndon Johnson in 1964 and odds are growing that McCain will get a whooping equal too or potentially worse at the hands of Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama.

He made hundreds of millions of dollars running Bain Capital, but Mitt Romney won't be running the U.S. He announced this afternoon that he is ending his run for the presidency. No doubt, countless Mormons and private equity lobbyists have gone into mourning.

Technically, Romney is "suspending" his campaign. This means that he will keep the delegates he won in his primary victories in Massachusetts, Michigan and Utah. This will give him some influence in the process of selecting the eventual Republican nominee.

Although Romney was a great success in the world of private equity, it didn't seem to help him in the national campaign. Mike Huckabee's line about the essential coldness of private equity investors -- "I believe most Americans want their next president to remind them of the guy they work with, not the guy who laid them off" -- was pretty devastating. I don't know if that background was Romney's greatest weakness -- his Mormonism didn't help, nor did his salesman's tendency to say just about anything to please a given audience -- but you can bet there are some disappointed Democrats out there. I'm sure they were looking forward to exposing the layoffs that Romney initiated through his equity investments.

As voters prepare for the Super Tuesday primaries, Democrat Barack Obama is closing the gap with Hillary Clinton while GOP front-runner John McCain is surging ahead of Mitt Romney.

Obama's performance is remarkable. A Gallup poll shows the Illinois senator trails Clinton 44% To 46%, according to The Wall Street Journal. (subscription required). On January 20, Clinton had a 20 point lead over Obama. More significantly, Clinton now is in a statistical dead heat with Obama in California, one of the big prizes in Super Tuesday that was once considered a lock for the New York senator.

All hope isn't lost for Hillary Clinton. Polling data should be taken with a huge grain of salt at this point in the campaign. Nonetheless, Obama's rising popularity is hard to dispute. The Grateful Dead minus the late Jerry Garcia are reuniting for the first time in four years today for an Obama rally in -- where else -- San Francisco. During the last Democratic debate, Obama and Clinton were asked about whether they would ever join forces. That probably won't happen. For one thing, Clinton needs Obama more than Obama needs Clinton and given the nastiness of the campaign it seems doubtful that one would play second fiddle to the other.

As for the Republicans, it's about time to stick a fork in Mitt Romney. Polls show that McCain has a 2-to-1 lead over Romney, proving that all of the money in the world can make voters like you. Once McCain wins the nomination, you can bet that there will be plenty of photo opportunities of him looking fit and vigorous, particularly if Obama is the Democratic candidate.

The silly season has only just started.

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.

Former Sen. Fred Thompson today called it quits from a presidential campaign which he undertook with all of the enthusiasm of a small child being forced to eat his peas, strengthening the surging campaign of John McCain. Meanwhile that pesky Ralph Nader is making noise about joining the campaign at this late juncture.

Thompson's departure wasn't a shock. The former actor and lawyer proved to be a surprisingly inept campaigner. In one memorable moment chronicled on YouTube, Thompson even had to ask a crowd in for a round of applause. He didn't endorse any of his former rivals.

This creates an opening that McCain can exploit. Mike Huckabee is a likable enough guy, but many people will think twice before voting for a social conservative. As for Mitt Romney, on paper he is an ideal candidate for fiscal conservatives. The trouble is that the former Massachusetts governor has made one gaffe after another, including speaking about a lifelong love of hunting that had come from the two times he actually did it.

Mitt Romney needs a primary win. And he's betting that he'll get one in Michigan -- which has the country's highest unemployment rate -- tomorrow. How does he plan to do that? The Boston Globe reports he'll fix Michigan's biggest employer -- the automobile industry -- including General Motors Corporation (NYSE: GM) and Ford Motor Company (NYSE: F).

Last week I did a radio interview in which I was asked how Mitt Romney could turn around his campaign after losses in Iowa and New Hampshire. I suggested that he should figure out what Michigan voters needed in a President and array his strengths against competitors' weaknesses to better meet voters' requirements. What does this mean? As the only candidate with a successful track record as a management consultant and investor, I argued that he could try to win Michigan by appealing to its voters' desire for the good jobs they enjoyed before the U.S. auto industry began losing ground in the 1980s.

As the Globe reported, Romney gave a speech along these lines to the Detroit Economic Club. If he wins the White House, Romney said, "I will roll up my sleeves, and I will personally bring together industry, labor, congressional and state leaders to develop a plan to rebuild America's automotive leadership. Washington should give the auto companies flexibility on higher fuel efficiency standards for vehicles, as well as increase funding for research from $4 billion to $20 billion and provide new tax benefits for research and development."

Barack Obama is the odds-on favorite -- for now -- to win both tomorrow's New Hampshire primary and the Democratic presidential nomination, according to traders at Dublin-based Trade Exchange Network Co., where people can buy and sell "shares" in political events.

The Illinois senator, who upset Hilary Clinton in last week's Iowa caucuses, stands a good chance of repeating his success in tomorrow's New Hampshire primary. The Trade Exchange's Intrade system shows Obama with a 90% change of winning the New Hampshire primary, to Clinton's 8.7% and John Edwards' 0.6%. Obama is being given a 66% chance of winning the nomination, compared with 32% for Hillary Clinton and 3% for John Edwards.

On the Republican side, traders are expecting John McCain to have an easy time beating back former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney, with an 82% chance of victory to Romney's 14%, in line with conventional wisdom. Chances for Iowa caucus winner Mike Huckabee and former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani appear somewhere between slim and none. McCain retains the edge to win the nomination, with a 4 percentage point lead on Giuliani and double-digit leads over the remaining candidates, online traders say.

Though the data is interesting, people should take it with a grain of salt -- no make that a truckload of salt. The political winds blow in many different directions as primary season heats up. Remember, it wasn't that long ago that pundits expected Clinton and McCain to win their respective primaries easily.

Add famed investor Jim Rogers to the list of people who think the economy is heading down the tubes.

In an interview with Bloomberg Television, Rogers predicted that "it's going to be one of the worst recessions we've had in a while because we had so many excesses going into it. It's going to be bad for all of us as currencies come under more and more stress and we have more inflation in the world.''

Moreover, Rogers, who already was bearish on the U.S. dollar, said he hopes to have all of his assets in other currencies by the end of the year. He also predicted that the greenback will be "under duress for many years to come."

Rogers, the head of Rogers Holdings, is hardly the only nervous Nelly about the economy. In a separate interview, with Bloomberg News, Harvard University's Martin Feldstein pegged the odds of a recession at more than 50%, adding that consumers "are going to be a little more reluctant to spend, and that is going to put a further drag on growth in 2008.''

Of course, all of this is great news for the Democrats and bad news for the Republicans, particularly former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney, heading into tomorrow's New Hampshire primary. Romney has been touting his experience in corporate America to voters. But voters aren't keen on corporations these days, which is why he's losing ground to Mike Huckabee.

In describing the results of last night's Iowa caucuses, The Washington Post's David Broder minced no words: "Eight years after Iowa voters did the conventional -- sending George W. Bush and Al Gore on to meet in the election of 2000, they shook up the status quo in both parties as never before. The victories of Barack Obama and Mike Huckabee jolted the expectations of establishment candidates with far stronger conventional credentials."

The New York Times' David Brooks was similarly thunderstruck. "I've been through election nights that brought a political earthquake to the country. I've never been through an election night that brought two."

While I admit the results were exciting, there is something that people often forget that the Philadelphia Inquirer's Dick Polman argues they need to remember: "Incumbents aside, exactly one victorious Iowa candidate -- George W. Bush in 2000 -- has ever gone on to win the presidency in the same year. Even though (Jimmy) Carter got an historic boost in Iowa, on the way to his November election, he actually finished second in Iowa -- behind 'Uncommitted.'"

Oh, so all of the hot air that's been expounded in the past 24 hours over this antiquated political system is that one of the least representative states in the country may not actually mean much in the long term. That's unbelievable, but what's worse is that we are about to go through this whole exercise yet again in an equally non-representative state, New Hampshire.

Much as I would like to ignore them, there is no escaping the Iowa caucuses. Every pundit within 1,000 miles of Des Moines is weighing in on their meaning, or lack thereof. But there is one message coming loud and clear from the campaign from average voters that will continue to be heard, regardless who wins the hearts and minds of Dubuque: We're scared.

Consider that consumer confidence ended the year on a negative note. Oil prices are at or about to pass $100. The real estate market continues to scrape along the bottom. People are unhappy about the war in Iraq and Afghanistan. They are unhappy with president. They are unhappy with the Democratic-led Congress. All of this crankiness is a great boon for the Democrats and a potential problem for Wall Street.

John Edwards, perhaps the most anti-corporate candidate, is in a statistical tie with fellow Democrats Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama. Anti-tax zealot Ron Paul continues to break fund-raising records even though he stands no chance of winning the Republican nomination. Republican Mitt Romney, who made his fortune in private equity and would presumably be Wall Street's friend, continues to struggle against economic populist Mike Huckabee. Rudy Giuliani, another potential Wall Street friend, is avoiding Iowa and New Hampshire because he's probably going to get beaten badly there.

As the election heats up, so will the anti-corporate rhetoric. Remember that many voters don't know the difference between a stock and a bond, and think 401 is a type of Special K. Fear, uncertainty and doubt will play a large role in determining the next president, and that's why the markets are going to remain volatile for quite some time, regardless of how many times the Federal Reserve cuts interest rates.

I seriously enjoy reading Ina Steiner. She's the editor of AuctionBytes.com. I like her stuff because she's just so damn objective. She simply lays out the facts and lets you come to your own conclusions. I also like Ina because she continuously holds a very bright light directly at eBay (NASDAQ: EBAY).

Recently, Ina opened the floor at the AuctionBytes blog for discussion about the involvement of Meg Whitman in the Mitt Romney campaign. Needless to say, the situation has raised some eyebrows. Personally, I don't care what direction either Meg or Mitt choose to go. Ina's readers, however, had a very dim view of the situation. My question is, has Meg's insurgence into the political realm affected the shareholders of eBay?

Forget for a moment all the ill conceived plans that eBay has tripped over. Ignore the Skype debacle, the eBay China crash, the silencing of Stubhub and the host of other demons that in my opinion the Whitman crew has set loose, buried or denied. Forget for a moment about all that cash flowing into eBay coffers with nothing better accomplished than to outsource customer service and to pay Whitman's salary. Ignore the wolf at the door in the form of Amazon Inc.(NASDAQ: AMZN). Never mind that eBay has lost its shine and reputation and is yet to pay a dividend to its shareholders. I'm talking about presidential politics and corporate wrangling here.