Drill, baby, drill was the calling card of the Republican Party during the last presidential election.

With high oil prices and rising demand, finding new sources of oil is imperative. Given environmental concerns, offshore drilling is one space that still offers meaningful potential to increase domestic supply.

Diamond Offshore Drilling (NYSE: DO) operates some 45 deep water rigs that are keeping extraordinarily busy with oil prices on the rise.

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.

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.

One of the Democratic Party's worst nightmares regarding the 2008 presidential election is coming to fruition: Sen. John McCain (R-Arizona) will be the Republican Party's nominee.

Some investors / readers may argue that as a moderate, somewhat rebellious Republican and an advocate of the Iraq War, McCain will be a fairly easy candidate for the Democrats to oppose. Well, to borrow one of Vice President Gore's renowned, low-key allusions, Now, I can see you really haven't researched the matter thoroughly.

True, the short-term forces -- issues -- are against McCain. The economy is barely growing, or is already in a recession, and the Iraq War continues with little certainty regarding its outcome or ultimate impact. Further, because there's a Republican in the White House, the American people -- if decades of political science survey research mean anything -- will blame the party in power for not having solved the above problems, and this will take votes away from McCain.

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.

[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.

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.

Why is it that whenever Ann Coulter says something idiotic, racist or just loony that the media acts surprised? Coulter, like Bill O'Reilly, has a long, well-documented track record for spouting nonsense. Check out the Media Matters Web site for a list.

Now the media world is in a tizzy over Coulter's statements to CNBC's The Big Idea with Donny Deutsch
that Christians "just want the Jews to be perfected." Deutsch responded by saying he found her comments "personally offensive."

Yeah, those comments were offensive but why did CNBC even give her the chance to make them on Deutsch's show and why did the General Electric (NYSE: GE) network invite her back to speak with another talking head, Larry Kudlow? The answer is, of course, ratings. News Corp (NYSE: NWS)'s Fox Business Network launches Monday, and CNBC wants people to talk about something besides the looming competition with Fox. Booking Coulter was a cheap publicity stunt.

The outrage being voiced by Deutsch and other CNBC talking heads is phony. I have no sympathy for TV hosts who invite on guests such as Coulter with a history of outrageous statements being "outraged" when she says something outrageous. What makes matters worse is that every time Coulter says or does something shocking, the media acts surprised, as if it's something new.

Coulter is like crack to TV talk shows. They just can't seem to get enough of the articulate, attractive and bonkers pundit, and neither can her legion of fans. Between her books and speaking fees, she no doubt earns a handsome living, since people never know what crazy thing she's going to say.

To be clear, people have every right to be mad about the things Coulter says. They should be equally upset at the mainstream media, including Deutsch, for continuing to give her a platform for her shtick without giving her much of a fight. This is particularly scary as the presidential election ramps up and political passions are at their height.

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.

This post is part of our Money Face-Offs feature. Let us know who you think comes out ahead in this head-to-head match-up, and check out our other Money Face-Off posts.

From the bodegas of Brooklyn to the penthouses of Central Park, most New Yorkers would probably tell you that they like the present mayor Mike Bloomberg a whole lot better than the previous occupant of Gracie Mansion, Rudy Giuliani.

Neither Bloomberg nor Giuliani suffers from low self-esteem. I worked for Bloomberg LP for seven years and had some brief encounters with Bloomberg over the years. One time, I called him "Mr. Bloomberg" when I shook his hand at the company's Christmas party. He insisted that I call him "Mike." I continued to call him Mr. Bloomberg. Warm and cuddly, he is not, and working for Mike's company wasn't always easy.

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.

I saw this photo of George Bush wearing Crocs on Styledash, and laughed at the suggestion he be impeached for wearing such ugly footwear (although, to be honest, I thought he looked rather dashing in them -- did I just type that?). I thought, hey, great endorsement! and started clicking around to other web sites.

That's when I saw this Forbes article about how Bush's May 18 fundraiser for the Republican Party was held at the estate of Rick and Sherry Sharp. Guess which company Rick Sharp is chairman of? Well, there are two, but the first one is Crocs, Inc. (NASDAQ: CROX). (The other one is Carmax, Inc. (NYSE: KMX).)

Could it be a coincidence that the country's president is shot sporting the iconic Crocs beach shoes at about the same time his buddy Rick helped raise $630k? Sure, that's chump change when it comes to party fundraising, but I'd be willing to bet the buzz surrounding Bush's fashion choices could have an equal effect to the price of Crocs' stock, which is (of course) very near its all-time high as it is, at $91.01, up 11 cents as of this writing. It's not quite dirty politics, but it is curious and curiouser.

Another BloggingStocks blogger, Garry E. Sattler, opined on the matter: President Bush and Crocs thumb their noses at media polls approval rating

Do you love or hate Crocs? See our gallery for more.

This post is written as part of AOL Money & Finance's Best & Worst of 2006. Vote for President Bush's fall from grace or see other nominees in this category.

U.S. President No. 43 has had a lousy 2006.

One way to judge President Bush's 2006 is to look at how much of what he wanted to achieve at the beginning of the year has actually been accomplished. By that measure, Bush did not fare all that well. Of the 14 agenda items he set out to achieve in his State of the Union address

• one got done,
• three were ongoing but two of these did not receive the increased funding Bush requested,
• on six, legislation was introduced but not passed, and
• four were unsuccessful.

Here are the details.

Although he did not complete his agenda items, the public judged Bush on Iraq and corruption in 2006. Contrary to his stated belief, the Republican party lost both houses of Congress in November. And a mere 31% of the American public approve of Bush's job performance.

Moreover, George W. Bush may not be the best choice in this category because he arguably did not begin 2006 with any "grace" from which to fall. Only 42% of the public approved of his job performance in January, which was eight percentage points below his January 2005 level. Will Bush return to a state of grace in 2007? That depends on how things turn out in Iraq.

Peter Cohan is President of Peter S. Cohan & Associates, a management consulting and venture capital firm, and a Professor of Management at Babson College.

What will the market's reaction be to the mid-term elections that are hopefully flourishing all across the country today? Well, if the U.S. Congress is any measure -- and it is -- the possible change in leadership from the 'Pubs to the 'Crats could cause some market whining and could send a minor -- or major -- spook into the marketplace this week. And we all thought Halloween was over by now.

A Republican leadership is generally more business-friendly in terms of policymaking than a Democratically-controlled Congress, and that fear alone could cause a sell-off or other strange and potentially harsh effects tomorrow and the rest of the month once the results start pouring in tonight after the market closes.

I am a huge fan of regularly changing the majority party in control of the U.S. Congress since it keeps business leaders on their toes and thwarts complacency and glad-handing. "Stirring the pot" is healthy for the economy and business in general in the world's largest economy, and we may see that happen today if the Democrats seize control of the House of Representatives. The Senate also up for grabs; it would take six seats changing hands for the Democratic party to stake its claim there as well. If that happened, President Bush would be in a quagmire for the rest of his administration.

What's your take? Will the election results today keep the market's status quo intact -- and growing -- or will possible majority changes cause strife in the White House and the two houses of Congress? Story at about 11:00 -- or shortly thereafter.

The Rev. Jesse Jackson -- always the one to stir the pot to his own interests it seems -- has adamantly requested that Wal-Mart Stores,Inc. (NYSE:WMT) dismiss a consultant to the company who is connected to a currently-running Senate ad campaign that Jackson says is racist. Republican strategist Terry Nelson is a consultant that Wal-Mart hired last month to help get information to its more than 1.3 million U.S. employees in its first company-wide voter registration drive. Nelson is now connected with an ad for the Republican National Committee that is being termed racist by many, including Jackson.

Wal-Mart spokesman Dave Tovar said "This has nothing to do with Wal-Mart, so it would be absurd for us to comment on it." This stance brings up an important question in the area of ethics: when someone is accused or even convicted of something that is morally, ethically and/or legally wrong, are all parties to whom the accused individual is connected, supposed to sever all ties with that individual?

There are arguments for and against this. I'm willing to bet that a majority of Americans would condemn any and all companies that were connected with a person involved with an alleged racist situation like this -- but should all connections be harped upon? If Wal-Mart hires a strategist , and that strategist later becomes associated with a racist comment or something similar, should Wal-Mart be blamed for hiring a "racist?" That kind of logic really doesn't stand up or we'd be boycotting every company at some point -- because skeletons in the closet aren't always known until the final minute.

What do you think? Should Wal-Mart fire this consultant based on a possible racist comment he made in a Senate advertisement that has no connection at all to the retailer?