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.

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

Barack Obama became the king of fund raising in 2008, having received a record amount in donations for his presidential campaign in the neighborhood of $750 million, and finishing with over $100 million in the bank. These contributions factored into a winning, grass-roots campaign strategy.

Actually he used a two-prong approach that enabled him to tap into the existing Democratic fund-raising machine attracting large donors through various traditional means, such as banquets and A-list parties. At the same time he was able to play the role of outsider and underdog to rally his grass-roots support among the young and commonly disenfranchised, handshake by handshake, and through a very adept use of the internet. The internet provided a constant source of connectivity with his followers, and allowed his team to respond to any news item with immediacy.

Now, president-elect Obama will be hoping to continue to amaze as he is tasked with guiding a devastated economy on the brink of collapse back to some semblance of equilibrium.

Police today arrested Illinois Gov. Rod Blagojevich and his chief of staff on federal corruption charges that both touch the Tribune bankruptcy and the incoming administration of his fellow Illinois Democrat Barack Obama.

According to the Chicago Tribune, the governor and his Chief of Staff John Harris allegedly demanded the firing of Chicago Tribune editorial board members responsible for editorials critical of Blagojevich in exchange for state help with the sale of Wrigley Field, the Chicago Cubs baseball stadium owned by Tribune Co. That takes pettiness to a new level.

Finding a new owner for the ivy-covered baseball temple is in the best interest of all taxpayers. I can't understand why any political leader with an ounce of integrity would want to hinder the sale, even to the extraordinarily obnoxious Mark Cuban. Then I read a little further.

The Tribune reports Blagojevich and Harris have been accused in a "wide-ranging criminal conspiracy" to gain financial benefits for the governor, members of his family and his campaign fund in exchange for state appointments, state jobs and state contracts.

Investors may not support Barack Obama, but they do expect him to be the next president of the United States. The smart ones do anyway.

If the polls are to be believed, Obama should easily defeat John McCain. Even the ultra-conservative talking heads on CNBC seem to have accepted this reality. Carl Quintinilla recently asked Pennyslvania Senator Bob Casey whether Obama will be "pulled to the left" if the Democrats win in a landslide. Why not ask Casey, who is pretty conservative as Democrats go, about Obama's five-year plan? I guess it's no surprise that the business network has Steve Forbes as a guest host on "Squawk Box." The Arizona senator needs all of the help he can get.

The market already -- wrongly in my view -- views Obama as a tax-and-spend liberal ready to suck away their capital gains and wrap America in bubble wrap to protect it from the ravages of world trade. The truth is more complex than these stereotypes. Obama plans to cut taxes for most Americans and favors fair trade policies. Markets, however, anticipate the future and people are scared. That explains why the Dow Jones industrial average is down more than 29%.

I realize that it's not a reason to pick a president, but if you care about your stock portfolio, you'd be better off with a Democratic president. How so? Peter Siris of Guerrilla Capital has run some numbers -- comparing an investment of $10,000 in the S&P 500 under Republican administrations to the same investment under Democratic ones. He permitted me to preview these numbers which will run in his New York Post column on November 3rd.

Since 1929 both parties have controlled the White House for 40 years and Siris estimates that the $10,000 would be worth $11,733 under Republican administrations and $300,671 under Democratic ones. According to Siris, "for whatever reason, Republicans have been in office during the three worst stock market declines: The Great Depression, the early to mid-1970s, and the current market."

That may sound interesting but what about recent presidents? Under the Clinton administration, the S&P 500 rose the most in the last 60 years -- up an average of 17.4% per year. The only president who posted a negative performance is a familiar name -- George W. Bush -- under his administration, the S&P 500 has fallen 27% from 1,342 to 979. It's an exceptional record and one that I hope will never recur.

Peter Cohan is President of Peter S. Cohan & Associates. He also teaches management at Babson College and edits The Cohan Letter.

Have you decided who to vote for in the 2008 U.S. Presidential election?

If you're like most Americans, you have. By this date, two weeks or so before the election, at least 90% and in some elections 95% of you know who you're going to vote for, political science research tells us.

Historically, at this stage of the campaign, the only people who have not determined which candidate they'll vote for are those adults who tend to not vote regularly: they'll often even pass up voting in a presidential election.

2008 campaign: most negative ever?

One benefit, if you've decided who to vote for U.S. Sen. Barack Obama, D-Illinois, or U.S. Sen. John McCain, R-Arizona, is that you don't have to watch any more campaign coverage or campaign ads (if you can avoid them).

True, it must seem like this presidential campaign has been the most negative ever, but if the truth be told, it's no more negative than the one in 2004, or in 1960, and certainly not more negative than the one in 1928. In 1928, the insults and smear tactics used against Democratic Party nominee N.Y. Governor Al Smith, would set the standard for gross and outrageous campaign tactics.

In less than two months, the U.S. is scheduled to hold an election. As the current 100 Year Crash unfolds, it is clear that old ways of thinking will not fix the problem. This challenge is enormous: history will not provide much of a guide and it is likely that the entire global financial system will need to be rebuilt from scratch. In short, whoever gets the job will face a challenge that would be overwhelming for anyone -- and it will require a leader with brains, energy and determination.

That's what scares me about John McCain's interview on NBC's Today Show Wednesday. Dealbreaker reports that Matt Lauer asked McCain whether he would let American International Group (NYSE: AIG) fail "on their own" without government help. To that, McCain replied,

Well...quote, "on their own"...we have to - we cannot have the taxpayers bail out AIG or anybody else...this is something we're gonna have to work through -- there's too much corruption, there's too much access, we can fix it, I believe in America - we can have a 9/11 commission such as we had after 9/11, 'cause this is a huge crisis and we can come up with fixes and we can make sure that every American has a safer future and that is to make them know that their bank deposits are safe and insured."

Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama is about to enter the "No Spin Zone."

The Illinois senator is due to be interviewed by Fox News' Bill O'Reilly, host of the "The O'Reilly Factor," on Thursday, the final night of The Republican National Convention, according to TVNewser.com. I am sure executives at Fox parent company News Corp. (NYSE: NWS) were high-fiving each other when that interview was secured. The clash between the suave Obama and the bellicose O'Reilly will make for interesting television. It will be like a car accident on the highway that people can't help themselves from gawking at.

Maybe Obama views it as a chance to show his supporters that he is not afraid of O'Reilly, who is a pussy cat compared with Russian strongman Vladimir Putin. It's also quite a contrast to the strategy of Republican John McCain, who is keeping the media at an arm's length. His campaign even canceled an interview the candidate had scheduled with CNN's Larry King because it did not like the tough questions anchor Campbell Brown asked its spokesman about the qualifiicaitons of his running-mate Sarah Palin.

Both the Democratic and Republican conventions have been a dream come true for the cable news channels. More people tuned into CNN, which is owned by Time Warner Inc. (NYSE: TWX), for Obama's acceptance than for Fox, MSNBC and the broadcast networks. The address got more viewers than the American Idol final, the Oscars, or the opening ceremony of the Beijing Olympics.

Fox, though, continues to attract more viewers overall, especially during the Republican get-together in St. Paul. General Electric Co.'s (NYSE: GE) MSNBC is gaining viewers too, though some may be curious to see if its feuding on-air personalities will break into a fist fight. All three of the cable news networks are raking in major bucks from those annoying 30-second TV spots that are an unfortunate part of American political life.

A winner has already emerged from the Obama-O'Reilly confrontation before a single punch has been thrown: News Corp. head Rupert Murdoch. The media baron lusts for the power to set the nation's political agenda. Come Thursday night, that's exactly what he will be able to do.

Right here, in my hometown of Minneapolis-St.Paul, the Republican National Convention is set to begin. The hotels, restaurants and bars are abuzz and a table for four is a tough reservation to secure!

The convention has been tempered down as the nation watched Hurricane Gustav, the first and most important priority. As the hurricane dwindles into just a huge rain storm, the convention can resume its course.

They say that once the conventions are finished, the nation truly focuses in on the presidential election. The 15% or so who watch the primaries in earnest will be joined by the other 85% who have tuned out. Well, now it's time to tune in. Both McCain and Obama have interesting and fascinating backgrounds; both have come such different paths to their respective party's nominations.

Many said Obama is inexperienced, until his campaign totally outmaneuvered the Clinton machine -- so much for inexperience. Senator Joe Biden brings 36 years of Washington experience to the ticket, although I'm not sure if that's really relevant in this election.

McCain electrified the Republican base by naming Governor Sarah Palin as his running mate. Her experience is also limited, although she does have executive experience, far more than Biden, Obama and McCain combined! The addition of Governor Palin has, at least locally here in Convention City, mobilized a great number of voters who were warm, maybe lukewarm, to Senator McCain. Many in Minnesota thought our governor, Tim Pawlenty, would grace the ticket with McCain. Politics makes for strange bedfellows though.

The Oracle of Omaha is shining a light on the presidential campaign of Barack Obama.

According to media reports, Warren Buffett is participating with Obama in a meeting about the economy along with Google Inc. (NASDAQ: GOOG) Chairman Eric Schmidt, former Treasury Secretaries Robert Rubin and Larry Summers and former Labor Secretary Bob Reich, according to CNBC. New Jersey Gov. Jon Corzine, a former Goldman Sachs Group Inc. (NYSE: GS) co-chairman, and former Federal Reserve Chairman Paul Volcker also will be at the meeting of the wisemen tomorrow. Buffett will be participating via telephone hook-up.

There is plenty to talk about given the current state of the economy and the housing market which the International Monetary Fund says shows no signs of recovery. Obama, the junior senator from Illinois, is clearly signaling not to expect much from the meeting.

``I expect some further fine-tuning of short-term policies based on what's happened over the last several months,'' Obama said in an interview with Bloomberg News.

What that means is not clear. It should surprise no one that Buffett is backing Obama. The investor has been critical of President Bush's economic policies including the repeal of the estate tax which he said would be a "terrible mistake." But that doesn't mean he agrees with all of Obama's policies either.

As CNBC notes, Buffett supported Hillary Clinton while she was running for president and disagrees with Obama's call to tax the windfall profits of oil companies and his decision to forgo public financing of his campaign. I guess the Omaha investor considers Obama to be a significant improvement over Republican John McCain.

Interesting how the greatest investor in history who Republicans tout as a champion of capitalism is as big of a Democrat as Barbra Streisand.

The United States, the most powerful nation the world has ever seen, will be getting a run for its money from China in the decades to come. According to a report by Albert Keidel of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, China's economy will surpass the U.S. by 2035 and will be twice its size by the middle of the century.

The thought of the U.S. not being number one is mind blowing, but not surprising. China's growth rate during this decade has averaged more than 10% and is still going strong even amid a global economic slowdown. Meanwhile, Chinese exports to the U.S. exceeded imports by about $75 billion between January and April. Chinese exports probably were not slowed much by the recent devastating earthquake that killed more than 69,000 probably did little to slow China's economy.

Not surprisingly, talk of protectionism seems to be on the rise in the U.S. One foolish member of Congress has proposed slapping new tariffs on Chinese goods to punish the country for currency manipulation. Such a law would probably be struck down by the World Trade Organization. Barack Obama, the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee, pledges to fight for a "a trade policy that opens up foreign markets to support good American jobs." He also wants to "amend" the North American Free Trade Agreement. Republican John McCain takes the opposite approach, vowing during his recent overseas trips to continue President Bush's free trade agenda.

For the first time Monday I heard John McCain comparing Barack Obama to Jimmy Carter. I had heard this before in other arenas, but not from McCain. I guess that despite these two presidential candidates pledging to the American people to bring change and resist politics as usual, they are both, as usual as one could get.

Obama is being shaped by the pressures of running for office and to believe otherwise is delusional. I suppose one has to have hope but the effects of the campaign are becoming clear. Obama has been painting McCain as an extension of Bush, which is nonsense, and now in a typical tit-for-tat response, McCain is filling the air with Carter references.

Both McCain and Obama are wrong in their assessments of their opponents and they are becoming commoners to resort to the bottom of the barrel campaign techniques used in every campaign for most of our nation's proud history. Obama gave up the high ground too easily and McCain has decided he can sling mud with the best of them.

The Wall Street Journal reports (subscription required) that Senator Barack Obama's bid for the presidency will be endorsed by three former Securities and Exchange Commission chairmen: George W. Bush appointee William Donaldson, Clinton appointee Arthur Levitt, and Reagan appointee David Ruder.

First of all: how many of you plan to factor in the endorsement of former heads of the SEC into your pick for president? That's what I thought.

But it's still interesting. Reality aside, Levitt and Donaldson are generally viewed as having been strong pro-investor advocates, mainly because they were good at pretending to take strong action against Wall Street malfeasance. Of course Enron's accounting was approved under Levitt's tenure but hey, nobody's perfect, right?

I'm not even sure why Levitt, Ruder, and Donaldson feel like they should endorse presidential candidates. Nobody cares! Barbra Streisand endorsed Hillary Clinton, and that's what really matters.

While Congressional Democrats and candidates for the presidency have spoken out in favor of more extensive help for distressed homeowners, the leaders of the Republican Party, including John McCain, have been more reluctant to support a bailout of people who bought houses they couldn't afford.

This is putting congressmen representing those areas hardest hit by foreclosures in a bind, as their constituents plead for help. What are they supposed to do?

This may be a case of a silent majority of people who oppose a bailout but aren't making much noise. People who are desperate to hang onto their houses tend to be louder than regular joes who just don't want their tax money being used for bailouts of irresponsible people -- Who wants to be seen as a judgmental curmudgeon?

I worry that politicians will compound the housing industry's problems because of political pressure, making doing the rational thing -- which may very well be nothing -- basically impossible.

When John McCain, in a rare moment of coherence got it right, the backlash was immediate, with an enthusiastic mob comparing him to Herbert Hoover.

The best bet for Republicans here is probably to stick to their guns on the no-bailout platform, and hope that the silent majority will get behind them.

I never thought I'd be doing a post praising John McCain's wisdom, but here goes.

In the midst of calls from members of both parties for a big government intervention in the mortgage crisis, John McCain said in a speech in Los Angeles that "it is not the duty of government to bail out and reward those who act irresponsibly, whether they are big banks or small borrowers."

Exactly -- Senator McCain is saying what needs to be said but isn't being said because of election-year politics. Democrats and some Republicans appear to be making a bet that you will win very few votes by saying that some people should lose their homes.

He added that "Some Americans bought homes they couldn't afford, betting that rising prices would make it easier to refinance later at more affordable rates ... Of those 80 million homeowners, only 55 million have a mortgage at all, and 51 million homeowners are doing what is necessary - working a second job, skipping a vacation and managing their budgets to make their payments on time. That leaves us with a puzzling situation: how could 4 million mortgages cause this much trouble for us all?"