Okay, I'm filing this under "things you get to do if you have more money than God."

On Thursday, Mike Bloomberg, mad genius, obscenely rich guy, and mayor of New York, announced that he would not be pursuing an independent Presidential run in 2008. The next day, he followed that up with a statement that he is considering backing another Presidential candidate ("Backing," in this context, translates into "roughly a billion dollars in campaign funding"). While everyone has assumed that he is planning on helping one of the three current front-runners, his vague wording opens up another possibility.

You see, when Bloomberg announced that he had decided not to run, he stated that an independent candidate "could win the race," but that it wouldn't be him. This makes perfect sense: the relatively poor showing of previous independents, coupled with the fact that being perceived as a "spoiler" tends to make one incredibly unpopular, convinced the big B that he didn't want to wreck his career on a failed candidacy. However, just because he doesn't want to be 2008's Ralph Nader doesn't mean that he is willing to completely turn his back on the White House. After all, why should he risk his neck when there are so many other people willing to put themselves out there?

He made hundreds of millions of dollars running Bain Capital, but Mitt Romney won't be running the U.S. He announced this afternoon that he is ending his run for the presidency. No doubt, countless Mormons and private equity lobbyists have gone into mourning.

Technically, Romney is "suspending" his campaign. This means that he will keep the delegates he won in his primary victories in Massachusetts, Michigan and Utah. This will give him some influence in the process of selecting the eventual Republican nominee.

Although Romney was a great success in the world of private equity, it didn't seem to help him in the national campaign. Mike Huckabee's line about the essential coldness of private equity investors -- "I believe most Americans want their next president to remind them of the guy they work with, not the guy who laid them off" -- was pretty devastating. I don't know if that background was Romney's greatest weakness -- his Mormonism didn't help, nor did his salesman's tendency to say just about anything to please a given audience -- but you can bet there are some disappointed Democrats out there. I'm sure they were looking forward to exposing the layoffs that Romney initiated through his equity investments.

The presidential race is started to come into focus ahead of next week's Super Tuesday primaries.

Democrat John Edwards, whose anti-corporate message never resonated with most voters, is dropping out of the race after failing to win the primary in his native South Carolina, according to media reports. Rudy Giuliani, who fell from presumptive front-runner to also-ran, also is expected to bow out and endorse rival John McCain.

Odds are that Edwards will endorse rival Barack Obama, adding to the growing list of backers which include Democratic stalwart Sen. Edward Kennedy. The Illinois senator is far from having the race locked up.

Barack Obama trounced Hillary Clinton in Saturday's Democratic primary in South Carolina, setting the stage for a dramatic showdown on Super Tuesday.

Obama got more votes than were cast in the 2004 primary. Former president Bill Clinton is trying to minimize the damage to his wife's candidacy, reminding people that Jesse Jackson also won South Carolina. That's true, of course, but Jackson won caucus, not primaries; it's an apples and oranges comparison. Sen. Edward Kennedy (D-MA) reportedly is the latest in a long line of Democratic leaders to succumb to the Obama magic.

The wind is clearly at Obama's back. Though Clinton is on the defensive, it would be foolish to count them (her and Bill) out. Polls show Obama trailing Clinton in most of the big Super Tuesday states, according to the Wall Street Journal.

His campaign Web site has some interesting ideas on economic policy and some vague ones including:

Want to know how much the Republicans are the creek in this presidential election? A Bloomberg News/Los Angeles Times poll found that voters believe Democrats are better able to handle the economy than President George W. Bush by a margin of 51% to 29%.

Moreover, more than two-thirds respondents said they believed the economy was doing badly, up from 56% in December. More people -- about 80% -- see a recession as likely, up from 71%. A Wall Street Journal/NBC News poll found similar results.

Is it any wonder that President Bush buried the bipartisan hatchet and worked out a fiscal stimulus package?

Wouldn't the economy have gotten more of a kick if unemployment insurance was extended?

That issue will be hotly debated when the bill gets to the Senate. Sen. Max Baucus, the chair of the Senate Tax Committee, told the Wall Street Journal that leaving it out was a "mistake." Let's hope the new spirit of bipartisanship in Washington lasts a little longer.

But I wonder whether sending tax rebates -- mine would be about $1,500 -- will really stimulate the economy? Odds are pretty good that my wife and I are going to wind up handing a lot of that money right back to Uncle Sam which isn't very stimulating if you ask me.

George F. Will, a man so WASPy that he would be cast as a conservative TV pundit if he wasn't one in real life, is downright depressed about his beloved Republican party.

Writing in the Washington Post, Will said "Nov. 4 could be their most disagreeable day since Nov. 3, 1964. Actually, this November could be even worse, because in 1964 Barry Goldwater 's loss of 44 states served a purpose, the ideological reorientation and revitalization of the party. ... Today, all the usual indicators are dismal for Republicans."

Among the problems cited by the bow-tied commentator:

More people identify themselves as Democrats,

independents are sympathetic to the Democrats,

Democrats control the majority of seats in states with 303 electoral votes,

Most Americans believe the country is on the wrong track,

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."

Barack Obama and Mike Huckabee triumphed in the Iowa caucuses last night. They won because they incited the passions of their supporters -- bringing record numbers to the 2,000 caucus locations throughout Iowa. According to the New York Times, a record number of Democrats turned out to caucus - more than 239,000 -- compared with fewer than 125,000 in 2004. By contrast, 108,000 Republicans caucused on Thursday.

Both parties had plenty about which to be passionate. Obama's supporters are a coalition of young people, women, and independents who are stirred by Obama's charisma and message of change to reject four more years of the Clintons. Huckabee, a former Baptist minister, was backed by evangelical Christians who were inspired to resist Mormon Mitt Romney and his $10 million in campaign spending. Polls of Republicans entering the caucus sites found that 60% described themselves as evangelical who intended to vote for Huckabee.

How will all this passion affect Tuesday's New Hampshire primaries? Will Obama's victory in Iowa help him chip away at Hillary Clinton's formidable lead in the polls? Will Mitt Romney, who owns a home in New Hampshire, prevail over John McCain? Reuters reports on polls -- taken before the caucus results were announced -- that Clinton and McCain lead there.

Let this be the last Iowa caucus that matters. Ditto for the New Hampshire primary. It is simply insane that two states that are among the least representative of America have so much say over who is elected president. That power should be given to the only state that really matters: New Jersey.

Instead of criss-crossing the cornfields of Iowa and the hamlets of New Hampshire, candidates should be getting to know the state I call home. They should marvel at the farm land of Salem County, Atlantic City's casinos and the beaches of Cape May. Imagine what the potential leaders of the free world can learn from listening to folks eating breakfast at a Jersey diner, or wandering the highways of South Jersey trying to make a left turn. Let them try and find a spot in a New Jersey Transit parking lot after 7 a.m., and take a gander at a sky-high property tax bill.

New Jersey also is among the most densely populated states, with pockets of enormous wealth (Bergen County near New York City) and extreme poverty (Camden, near Philadelphia). There's the beauty of Barnegat and the ugliness of Elizabeth. Politicians of both parties could learn quite a bit from the Garden State.

But my pleas will fall on deaf ears. We Americans pick a president with less sophistication than most high school seniors chose the king and queen of their proms. Maybe one day it will change, but I doubt it.

Until then, the rest of the country is going to have to take the hand-me-downs left to us by an antiquated electoral system in Iowa and New Hampshire.

George W. Bush has weakened America's economic and political standing while strengthening the hand of our enemies. As Iowans caucus today, it remains to be seen whether a leader will emerge this year who can reverse the forces Bush set in motion before America loses its leadership position in the world.

What forces did Bush set in motion? Bush created an enormous federal budget deficit through his $1.6 trillion tax cut. He increased government borrowing to a record $9.1 trillion. His wars in Afghanistan and Iraq have contributed to global instability which has helped drive the price of oil up four-fold from $24 a barrel to nearly $100. The dollar has lost 60% of its value -- for example, the Euro has climbed from 92 cents to to $1.47. And his drive to increase home ownership -- supported by subprime mortgage lenders like Ameriquest -- has contributed to tens of billions of write-downs by banks that bought securities backed by those liar loans.

This is not the first time global leadership has changed hands in world history. According to Niall Ferguson, in the 1870s, the Ottoman empire lost its lead in the world as its over-extended empire sought to cope with an external debt crisis by selling off revenue streams to foreign investors. Then, the Ottoman empire sold off its shares of the Suez Canal as well as its tax revenues to pay off the debts it incurred to finance the Crimean War, railway and canal construction and conspicuous consumption. Back then the beneficiaries of those cheap asset sales were western Europeans.

Documentaries like Maxed Out and In Debt We Trust have looked the problem of ever-growing consumer debt, and the role that government has played in its expansion.

Now , Senator and Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama wants Washington to play a role in the solution too. Here are some clips from a statement Obama issued, as well as a discussion he had with debt counselors and consumers burdened with heavy debt. Courtesy of The Associated Press:

"The truth is, our middle-class families are not going to be secure so long as they can't get out of debt. If we're serious about stopping Americans from falling deeper in debt, we've got to crack down on predatory credit card companies that are pushing them over the edge....

"Many credit card companies are tricking Americans into agreements they can't afford because that's how they make big profits. Well, no company's bottom line should come before what's right for the American people."

Obama proposes a credit card bill of rights. From the Senator's website:

A month ago, I suggested that Countrywide Financial Corp. (NYSE:CFC) could be this year's version of Enron. One reason: Enron's Ken Lay and Countrywide's CEO Angelo Mozilo both publicly boosted their companies' prospects as they dumped their shares.

Today's New York Times [registration required] seconds that motion by reporting that North Carolina's Treasurer, Richard Moore, has asked the SEC to investigate Mozilo's $132 million in stock profits -- which he took as Countrywide traded above $40 -- it's now trading at $18.80 -- right before the subprime mess heated up starting in October 2006.

Moore's letter expressed his anger: "As an investor and a Countrywide shareholder, I was shocked to learn that C.E.O. Angelo Mozilo apparently manipulated his trading plans to cash in, just as the subprime crisis was heating up and Countrywide's fortunes were cooling off." How is this like Enron's Ken Lay? As I posted before, Ken Lay sold about $100 million worth of shares even as he was telling Enron employees what a great investment its shares were.

Will the SEC investigate? Will Mitt Romney keep Mozilo's campaign contribution? Stay tuned for the next episode.

Peter Cohan is President of Peter S. Cohan & Associates, a management consulting and venture capital firm. He also teaches management at Babson College and edits The Cohan Letter. He has no financial interest in Countrywide securities.

More Countrywide Financial news

Douglas McIntyre: Countrywide (CFC) CEO stock sales questioned
Zac Bissonette: Countrywide (CFC) has a new PR campaign, but what about real change?
Eric Buscemi: Countrywide (CFC) showing some class and good business sense
Peter Cohan: Is Countrywide (CFC) too big to fail?
Douglas McIntyre: Could subprime problems hurt search engines?
Peter Cohan: Is Bank of America's (BAC) purchase of Countrywide Financial (CFC) a good bet?
Joseph Lazzaro: The (still) foggy subprime mortgage sector
Peter Cohan: What the mortgage meltdown means to you
Michael Fowlkes: Countrywide Financial (CFC) adds to subprime panic
Peter Cohan: Could Countrywide Financial (CFC) be put down?

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.

What if politics was like the stock market and you could buy politicians you like and sell the ones you didn't without envelopes of sequentially numbered small money orders in the same Chinese handwriting or cold cash hidden in the freezer?

For those rich enough -- they can buy a politician or two. The rest of us probably could rent a couple minutes of time with a big campaign contribution, and get lots of promises from a politician. Knowing the integrity of politicians and the value of political promises I am not sure how good of an investment politicians turn out to be.

Maybe you are one of the people smart enough to pick up a couple of bucks around the office at election time with bets on who is going to win. I have to admit I lost the last political bet I made. Good thing it was only a buck. What if there was a stock market where you could buy and sell shares in the candidates? The candidates would move up and down every day and those of us who are financial analysts could quantify the likelihood of people winning based on how bets are placed.

Now I am not into horse racing, poker or sports betting; but I do have to check up on the political bets every once in a while. With real money on the line there is a big incentive to be right. If you do not like the odds you can jump into the market and take the other side of the action. So what do the bookies think is going to happen in the coming election? Well it appears that Clinton is the favorite for the Democratic nominee with 67.8% and the Republican Rudy Giuliani leads the GOP with 35%.

Democratic front-runner Sen. Hillary Clinton owes her fellow Senator Larry Craig a huge debt.

The scandal involving the Idaho Republican has deflected the media's attention from the revelations of dodgy campaign contributions her campaign received from fugitive California businessman Norman Hsu. Craig is a much better story. For one thing he's a conservative Republican with close ties to social conservatives who is so out of touch with reality that it's comical. His "I am not gay. I never have been gay" statement convinced no one.

What makes Craig's downfall so dramatic is that it came from a high perch of moral superiority that Republicans seem to like to inhabit more than Democrats. There also have been rumors about Craig's allegedly secret gay life since the early 1980s when there was a scandal involving members of Congress having sex with male pages. Craig, a Congressman at the time, issued a statement denying rumors that he had been implicated. He reportedly is now close to resigning.