The clock is ticking and the pollsters are bouncing around faster than ever with varying results. My latest wager was not on a stock, but a box of 24 doughnuts with a friend who thinks McCain will win the election.

Given the post-Palin slide of the McCain campaign we have been hearing about for the past six weeks, I thought this was a sure thing. Then we learn -- not so fast folks! -- things can change.

Presidential Race Tightens, AP Poll Says Wow, I'll say, they can change. Is this a case of "better the devil we know than the angel we don't"? Although many voters have a throw the bums out mentality, putting Republicans out of favor for the moment, in times of crises perhaps people are rethinking whether they would not prefer the familiar to the enchanting.

This seems to be the election of the enchanted so far. Barack Obama and John McCain were underdogs at the beginning of the presidential primaries but have withstood their critics harshest blows and came out on top.

I was motivated to write this by a recent blog post by Jonathan Berr entitled, Iowa to Wall Street: Drop dead. In that post Jonathan made one assertion to which I take exception. Mr. Berr claims that the American voter is scared and that our fear shall rule the ballot box this coming November. With all due respect (and much is due) to Jonathan Berr, I must make this one assertion, it's not fear that we shall carry to the ballot box in November, it's anger. We as a public are very angry and we have every right to be mad as hell.

We're mad because we know that as major banks were writing off losses they brought upon themselves, they sold those debt portfolios to collection agencies and pools of lawyers who relentlessly chased those dollars until the cows came home. Yeah, it's a loss on the books but those debts are still real and collectible. Do they honestly think we don't know that?

We're angry because our government is silently allowing the sale of large stakes in major domestic financial institutions to foreign entities.

We're upset that our government is underwriting the foolishness of producing ethanol from foodstuffs for use in internal combustion engines when good sense tells us that ethanol should be made from waste and used at it's source for electrical generation.

We're mad as hell that we're potentially facing a government made up mainly of turncoat Democrats who sanctioned a war with their votes and now haughtily claim they were misled. They're liars or they're stupid... which is it?

If the flow of political fund raising capital can be used as a gauge, then there's a strong message coming from the flow of campaign contributions from venture capitalists. Contributions by venture capitalists to Democratic candidates exceed contributions to Republicans by a nearly two to one margin. Red Herring reports, of the contributions from individuals and political action committees connected to the venture capital industry, Democrats have gathered $2.4 million compared with $1.4 million given to Republicans. That's quite a difference and it reveals a little about the current mindset of the finance industry in light of the coming elections.

National Venture Capital Association, is top contributor with $365,500 split 54% Democrat to 46% Republican. This seems to be a reasonable split. The giving picture from the number two and three contributors is much different however. The second largest VC contributor is Kleiner Perkins who piled 94% of $147,400 onto Democratic candidates. Third on the big donor list is Hummer Winblad which gave 100% of it's political contributions to the Democrats. The article from Red Herring expands on the list.

Most interesting to me is the fact that presidential candidate Barack Obama has handily out paced Hillary Clinton in total contributions from the VC camp. Top recipient, Obama has had $349,074 donated to his name while Clinton has only received $235,000 from similar sources. It's also important to note that Obama's total topped the VC's donations of $289,350 to Republican candidate Mitt Romney. Rudi Giuliani wraps up the top four with total contributions received of $178,400.

What do these funding dynamics indicate to you? Is there a fundamental shift taking place or are venture capitalists just hedging their bets? Do these patterns of political contribution reflect intent or are they simply a reaction to an overwhelming sense that something big must change? If political donations by venture capital organizations are an electoral thermometer, I must say it's getting mighty warm in here.