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.

The New York Times reports that Hillary Clinton is giving off signals that her campaign for President could be nearing an end. It's hard to know if this veil of tears is just Hillary using the crying gambit -- as she did in New Hampshire -- in the pages of her hometown newspaper. But as she acknowledges in the article, running for President is a marathon from which the fittest political athlete emerges victorious.

The Times article helps highlight a critical difference between Clinton and Obama which may explain why Obama is proving himself to be the fitter of the two Democratic candidates. With Clinton, it appears that the voter's job is to help her to realize her ambitions by giving her money or votes. By contrast, Obama presents himself as the vessel for achieving voter's hopes. In short, with Hillary it's about what voters can do for her. And for Obama, it's about what he can do for voters.

The effect of these different approaches is that Clinton appears tired as she struggles to break an 11 state losing streak in the upcoming March 4th primaries. It's as though she needs the voters to give her the strength to keep going and that evidence of insufficient support saps her strength. By contrast, Obama looks like he hasn't really broken a sweat as he goes from victory to victory.

Fresh from several disappointing early voting contests, Republican presidential candidate Rudy Giuliani announced a plan to cut corporate business taxes from 35% to 25% as a way of stimulating the economy. It is difficult to know whether this is a serious policy issue for Giuliani or merely an attempt to get some attention to help his presidential campaign. But current Republican front runner Senator John McCain has also jumped on board Giuliani's proposal, so perhaps the issue will gain brief traction as the nomination circus continues.

Corporate tax cuts are not an automatic economic booster. In theory, reducing corporate tax rates leads to more productive corporate activity, which leads to higher profits. This in turn should lead to higher profits resulting, down the road, in higher tax revenues. Lower taxes on the front end in order to get back higher tax revenues in the longer term. Except that often, the longer term necessitates its own tax manipulations.

Reducing corporate taxes may seem like a good idea to a candidate looking for industry support. But at a time when some American companies are notching record profits and American consumers are being slammed with rising energy and fuel prices, tax breaks for corporations that are outsourcing or shedding jobs right and left will not earn a candidate many votes. Ultimately, it's voters who pull the lever.

Congratulations to former Vice President (and woulda-coulda-shoulda president) Al Gore on receiving half of the Nobel Peace Prize this week for his strident work in the area of global warming. The news added fuel to the fire that Gore might insert his name on the long list of presidential candidates, even this late in the game.

If he enters the race, he would do so challenging Democratic front runner Hillary Clinton for the nomination, after serving as vice president under her partner and currently greatest supporter President Bill Clinton. Can you hear the backroom politics going into full swing at this very moment? No doubt there are phone lines on fire in Washington, New York, and California as I type.

Hillary wants to be president so bad she can taste it. If not for her ambition, Mr. Clinton might have been lodging with some foreign legion in a remote part of the world many years ago. Gore does muddy things up a bit for a lot of hopeful folks. If he ran it would add a lot of excitement to what is getting to be a more and more boring presidential campaign. Meanwhile after winning the "Prize," Gore passes Obama for Democratic nomination. Another twist if Gore runs (50/50 odds) is that polls still show him as a long shot to receive the nomination over Clinton. Perhaps Barrack Obama and Gore joining forces (a Gore/Obama ticket) might make some advances if they announced early -- but this would burn some bridges neither wants to burn.

Friday's Wall Street Journal talked about the efforts Democratic Presidential candidates are making to gain favor with some of the blogosphere's most prominent Democrats. Yes, ladies and gentlemen, blogs really are that influential nowadays. Senator Hillary Clinton has even sent her communications director on television to support Daily Kos, a liberal blog that has been highly critical of her campaign.

This got me to thinking: How much longer before lowly business bloggers like me can make an impact on corporate America? I've always wanted to launch a campaign against incompetent management at a company, and use the power of blogging to effect change. I've made several attempts at this here at BloggingStocks, but didn't generate much interest.

I believe that the internet, social networking, and blogging could be the catalysts for tremendous positive change in corporate governance -- something that I would argue is severely lacking at the majority of America's publicly-traded companies. I know of several small, grass-roots efforts that have generated some waves, but nothing major ... yet.

I believe that our day is coming though. Does anyone else here think bloggers are perfectly positioned to take on greedy and lackluster management?