Presumptive Republican presidential candidate John McCain's plan to award a $300 million prize "for the development of a battery package that has the size, capacity, cost and power to leapfrog the commercially available plug-in hybrids or electric cars " raises many questions.

For one thing, what does he mean by "leapfrog?" Does the McCain car have to be 10?% better? 20% better? or 30% better? Will a marginal improvement suffice? Moreover, who is going to decide whether the goal is met? environmentalists? the automakers? the government? These people can not agree on what we should do to reduce air pollution; I can't imagine the fights that will occur over what constitutes a technological "leap."

McCain wants the car to deliver a power source at 30% of the "current costs." Does that mean costs as of 2008 or whenever this wonder car is ready to be sold to consumers? How does he define "costs?" Is it the total cost of ownership or a reduction in the sticker price or something else entirely? Why limit it to batteries? What about hydrogen fuel cells whose only pollution is water vapor?

In a speech he delivered today, McCain pointed out that "right now we have a hodgepodge of incentives for the purchase of fuel-efficient cars." Indeed, purchasing a hybrid only makes economic sense for the most die-hard of tree huggers. But is the answer to skyrocketing gasoline price to be found in a contest? I am not so sure.

First the good news: Congressional Democrats are talking up the idea of a second fiscal stimulus package to help jump start the U.S. economy.

Now the bad news: Congressional Democrats are talking up the idea of a second fiscal stimulus package to help jump start the U.S. economy.

U.S. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-California, said she would raise the prospect of a second stimulus bill when she and other Congressional leaders meet with President Bush this week, CNN reported Monday.

Anemic U.S. economy

Speaker Pelosi did not provide specifics but said March 2008's "disturbing unemployment numbers" which indicated the nation's economy lost 80,000 jobs "compels the President to work with Congress on a second stimulus package to get our economy back on track, create jobs, and speed assistance to families struggling to make ends meet," CNN said.

On Monday, the Bush Administration said it was too soon to talk about the need for a second economic stimulus package because the first one had not been fully implemented yet, Reuters reported.

My Ph.D. adviser David E. RePass, professor emeritus at the University of Connecticut, used to frequently recite an axiom about the U.S. Congress that rings true, regardless of era, or circumstance.

"Congress does not react, unless not reacting will result in the wrath of the American voter."

Well, concerning housing, it looks like Congress sees the wrath of the American voter ahead because the legislative body is starting to react.

Two measures working their way through Congress may ease the housing crisis. The first, a bipartisan Senate measure, is a modest step to address the rise in home foreclosures, The New York Times reported Friday.

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.

Over the past ten years, eBay (NASDAQ: EBAY)'s CEO, Meg Whitman, has had a love / hate relationship with eBay users. No matter what your personal thoughts are regarding Whitman, you have to give it to her; she did take eBay to levels no one would have dreamed possible just ten years ago.

Well, her tenure at eBay is coming to an end, and her next move is into politics, working high up in Senator John McCain's Presidential campaign.

Back in January, Whitman announced that she would be stepping down from eBay to pursue philanthropy and politics, and her first big step is going to be serving as co-chair of Senator McCain's national presidential campaign.

While we still have not reached the point of McCain being announced the official Republican candidate for the upcoming election, it is all but a forgone conclusion that McCain is going to be the Republican's choice for November's pivotal election in America. After a rocky eight years with George Bush running the show, the Republicans are definitely going to have their hands full with this year's election, and Whitman is coming on board to have a leading role in the campaign's financing and policy development.

My initial assessment of The New York Times' (NYSE: NYT) controversial story about John McCain's relationship with a female lobbyist gave the paper too much of the benefit of the doubt.

Originally, I wrote, "What people, particularly those outside of the media, need to realize is that there rarely are smoking guns in these sorts of stories and that anonymous sources are a necessary evil. At times, journalists have to build their cases using circumstantial evidence the same way lawyers do in court."

But after reading Clark Hoyt, the paper's ombudsman, blast the piece in his column Sunday, I realized that I was too easy on the paper. The story, as Hoyt noted, "did not say what convinced the advisers that there was a romance. It did not make clear what McCain was admitting when he acknowledged behaving inappropriately - an affair or just an association with a lobbyist that could look bad."

Ever since the New York Times broke the story about John McCain's close relationship with lobbyist Vicki Iseman, howls of outrage have been heard from one end of the right wing media world to the other. Outstanding Americans including Rush Limbaugh have accused the gray lady of publishing a partisan hatchet job on the Arizona senator who until this moment had been their public enemy no. 2 behind the mainstream media.

The story that McCain's aides tried to protect him because they were worried that their boss was having an extramarital affair with lobbyist Vicki Iseman struck a nerve. My colleague Aaron Katsman called it a "hit job", and investors who have long ago soured on newspaper stocks sent shares of the New York Times Co. (NYSE: NYT) downward. Meanwhile, a potential proxy fight looms with dissident shareholder Harbinger Capital.

But lost in the hoopla is the fact that the central theme of the story that aides were worried about McCain's relationship with Iseman during the 2000 campaign has been proven. In fact, other news organizations, including the Washington Post , were able to match the story. In fact, the Post is reporting today that McCain has some cozy relationship with other lobbyists even though he bad-mouths the profession all of the time. Both McCain and Iseman deny they had an affair or that she received any preferential treatment from the senator. Nonetheless, some former McCain aides were clearly worried about the lobbyist.

Democrat presidential candidate Sen. Barack Obama, D-Illinois, today unveiled a new $210 billion federal spending plan that he says would create jobs in construction and environmental services.

The Obama proposal would invest money over 10 years in two programs, the largest of which would be a $150 billion effort to create 5 million "green collar" jobs to develop more-environmentally friendly energy sources.

The remaining $60 billion would fund a National Infrastructure Reinvestment Bank to rebuild the nation's highways, bridges, airports and other public facilities. Obama said the construction fund would create nearly 2 million jobs, many of them in construction directly - - a sector hard-hit by the housing sector's correction - - the nation's most severe housing slump in more than 20 years.

Rival Democratic Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-New York, called Obama's effort unoriginal. Neera Tanden, Clinton's policy director, said Obama was offering ideas Clinton proposed months ago. "Voters may ask themselves that if Senator Obama cannot produce his own ideas on the campaign trail, how will he solve new problems as president?" Tanden said in a memo e-mailed to reporters, The Associated Press reported.

Furthermore, the Republican National Committee, which seeks to portray Obama as a tax-and-spend liberal, included Obama's plan on its 'Obama Spend-O-Meter.' The Republicans assert that Obama's announced programs would add $850 billion in federal spending over four years, including health care, education, national service and foreign aid programs, among others. The RNC's web site did not break down the asserted total by year, but economist Steve Affinito told BloggingStocks Wednesday, assuming equal, annual appropriations of $212.5 billion, the total would not be an unreasonable nor an unwarranted outlay, from an economic standpoint, in his interpretation.

"I don't know where the RNC obtained its $850 billion total, but for the sake of argument, even it was $220 billion per year, that's fairly modest, given the services it includes, including universal health insurance," Affinito said. "Also, given the current state of the economy we may find we may need another $150-$200 billion economic stimulus this year, just to keep the economy growing. So in that regard, Sen. Obama's proposal is insinc with the times and a net positive for the U.S. economy."

As a registered independent who voted for Obama on Super Tuesday, I was interested in reading BusinessWeek's take on Obama's likely impact on the U.S. economy. Its conclusion is that Obama is thoughtful and refreshing and is willing to work with business leaders, many of whom may reject him because he does not hew to the Republican line on taxes.

Last Friday, while Guest Hosting CNBC's Squawk Box, I spoke with Obama's economic advisor, University of Chicago professor Austan Goolsbee. He made two points that I found interesting. First, he said that Obama is very enthusiastic about the prospects for the U.S. economy and the stock market. Second, he suggested that Obama was months ahead of Hillary Clinton in proposing an economic stimulus package.

I asked Goolsbee what he thought was the cause of the economic slowdown. He thought the problem was the cash-strapped consumer and that tax rebates were the solution. I argued that the problem is that banks lack sufficient capital to offset the write-downs they're taking in the wake of the evaporation of demand for the Collateralized Debt Obligations (CDOs) they hold. Goolsbee thought this was a secondary problem and did not embrace my proposal to recapitalize the banks.

Hillary Clinton's chances of becoming the next president of the United States are fading fast.

Barack Obama swept the so-called Potomac primaries yesterday in Maryland, The District of Columbia, and Virginia, humiliating the New York senator by double-digit margins. On the Republican side, John McCain won a decisive victory over rival Mike Huckabee further cementing his front-runner status. The real story of the election, though, is the surging popularity of Obama.

The exit polls in the latest primaries probably are scaring the Clinton campaign to death. As The New York Times noted, "he received majority support from voters across all income and education levels, as well as across political ideologies, from those who described themselves as liberal, moderate and conservative Democrats. And independents, who were allowed to vote in Virginia's Democratic primary and accounted for 2 in 10 voters there, supported Mr. Obama two to one over Mrs. Clinton."

Social scientists, unlike some journalists, are reluctant to label anything a trend until they've amassed and evaluated a great deal of data often over years. A journalist can always cite a lack of information, or the crush of daily (and shorter) deadlines as a reason his/her news story did not describe reality, but if a social scientist errs in a refereed-article, well let's just say the action is not conducive to career advancement.

And that's why many social scientists are reluctant to comment on the impact of Sen. Barack Obama's (D-IL) run for the U.S. presidency: it's way too early to articulate informed conclusions that are likely to endure.

Still, that's not to say that one can't comment on developments that may -- and underscoring "may" -- be indicative of a trend. And along that line, here's what we know about the Obama candidacy regarding voting behavior:

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.

This one may make the record books for an approved, federal stimulus package, if it becomes law within a month.

U.S. Congressional officials from both parties and White House aides announced Thursday morning they have reached a tentative deal on an economic stimulus plan, an aide close to the negotiations said, Reuters reported.

"We have an agreement in principle," said the aide, who spoke on condition he not be identified. Plan costs were not immediately available.

The Democratic Party-led U.S. Congress and the Republican Party-led White House have been negotiating a $140-160 billion fiscal packaged aimed at stimulating the U.S. economy, which most economists believe is growing well below trend-growth levels. Many believe the economy is growing at about 1.0-1.5%, if it hasn't already fallen into a recession.

It sounds like a bad dream. You should up to listen to and perhaps ask questions of Mike Huckabee, a leading Republican candidate for President but first ... You have to sit through a speech about what a great opportunity Amway is. Pass the puke bucket.

But that's exactly what happened in West Des Moines, according to the Baltimore Sun: "For half an hour, two businessmen paced the stage where Huckabee would soon stump. They never said the name of the company during their talks, but afterward some members of the crowd shared with others the good news of a company called Quixtar Inc." Earlier this year, parent company Alticor said it was phasing out the Quixtar name and rebuilding its Amway brand which it had dropped in 2000.

Huckabee denies any formal association with the multi-level marketing hucksters, but said that they were a "great group of people."

It appears true that Alticor employees and executives haven't been giving to Huckabee. For whatever reason, company patriarch Richard DeVos has given money to Rudy Giuliani and Mitt Romney. But historically, Alticor has been a huge donor to the Republican Party.

Maybe Giuliani, Romney, and the GOP as a whole should do some research into the background of the company that has been one of the part's top donors for years. They could start with this excellent Dateline special.

I've been intrigued by Ron Paul's Presidential candidacy because I think he's talking about issues that are deserving of attention but aren't getting it: the role of the Federal Reserve, our interventionist foreign policy, and the IRS, just to name a few.

But an article in The New Republic raises questions about Congressman Paul's character. It seems that for years, he edited a newsletter that frequently contained racist and homophobic tirades, and paranoid conspiracy theories. Read the article for all the juicy examples.

Wanting to be fair, I waited for Ron Paul's campaign's response to post on this. In a press release, he stated that "When I was out of Congress and practicing medicine full-time, a newsletter was published under my name that I did not edit. Several writers contributed to the product. For over a decade, I have publicly taken moral responsibility for not paying closer attention to what went out under my name."