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.

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.

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.

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.

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?