It’s no secret Hollywood and Washington, D.C. have a symbiotic, albeit love-hate relationship with one another. It’s also no secret that many of the silver screen’s heavy-hitters are also Democrats, or at least favor Democrats. This likely has something to do with Democrats leaning towards the left end of the political spectrum, which not-so-coincidentally describes Hollywood’s general tendencies.

In fact, if you think about, most of the social changes and shifts our country’s gone through, are either precipitated by films (like a changing attitude towards AIDS with the Oscar winning film “Philadelphia”, to global awareness and plights of other nations as depicted in “Hotel Rwanda” or “Blood Diamond.”) Those films a just a couple examples, if we were to really dig deep we’d see that much of Hollywood’s films are merely a microcosm of our macro, real world issues.

In essence, Hollywood feels compelled to be a part of the political process for social change and awareness. Whether out of guilt for their excessive and extravagant lifestyle, or some benevolent need that exists within their more “creative” natures, Hollywood has and will continue to influence our world. This really is a good thing. On the other side of the political spectrum, the rich elite who’ve managed to gain their influence and money through big business tend to favor a more socially conservative government which often overlooks the little guy. Hollywood and Big Business duke it out and provide balance where it otherwise wouldn’t exist. Sadly, this push for change from the west coast sometimes backfires, and causes us more grief than we want. When Hollywood attempts to push an agenda, like that of homosexuality, some factions within this country come out swinging HARD and then we end up with people like Mike Huckabee (and certainly President Bush) running for office and actually WINNING votes.

In my opinion, some social changes (like being more open-minded towards alternative lifestyles and gay marriage) need to happen on a subtle, gradual plane or we will ALL be stuck with the religious fundamentalists getting their bible-thumping panties in a bunch. Hollywood has yet to learn the old Kenny Rodgers card-bluffing adage, “know when to hold ‘em, know when to walk away, know when to run.”

So what does all this mumbo-jumbo mean? Hollywood is once again taking bold steps to throw their powerful cards in the 2008 presidential race in the way only they can; political endorsements, fund-raising, and of course, personal contributions.

Unlike the rest of us, big-name celebs have much more power, influence and money to offer those who they choose to back politically. The 2008 election is no exception. Many movie stars and studio execs have stepped forward to contribute from their own purse, in even greater numbers than previous elections. What’s really interesting about this next race are who the frontrunners are for the Democratic nominee: a black man, and female.

Clinton and Obama are minorities, though both equally powerful and influential. What Barack Obama lacks in political experience, he makes up for in charisma and character. And of course Hilary Clinton has her vast life-span of years in the political arena, as not only an attorney, a governor’s wife, and First Lady, but as a popular Senator from the state of New York. I have almost no doubt one of these two will be our next leader. Apparently, Hollywood can’t quite seem to make up its mind which one it wants. It’s sort of tantalizing to think we could break a barrier which many other countries in the world have already broken. We could have our first black president, or our first female president. A very cool prospect. Maybe this explains why so many celebs have contributed to BOTH candidates in the hopes of making sure we do cross this new and exciting frontier. ABC News has a breakdown of some of the contributions.

Here’s a brief list of some names and contributions - I encourage you to read the article for more in depth analysis, which explains some of the new campaign reform laws, how much individuals can contribute and how often. This is especially interesting as some people contributed early to one nominee and then ended up contributing to another in the next quarter. A little bet hedging I’d say.

Barack Obama (1st Quarter Contributions):

Jennifer Aniston, Ed Norton, Eddie Murphy, Morgan Freeman, Zach Braff, Kate Capshaw (Steven Spielberg’s wife) Angela Bassett, Gene Wilder, Leonard Nimoy, Joy Bryant, Gabrielle Union, Rosanna Arquette, Jody Foster and actress Jamie Gertz all gave $2300 to Obama in the 1st quarter (which is half of $4600 total maximum allowed.) Tom Hanks, Tobey Maguire and Ben Still (see below for details)

Hilary Clinton (2nd quarter Contributions):

Tom Hanks,Tobey Maguire and Ben Stiller donated to Obama in the first quarter, but donated to Clinton in the second. Hanks, and wife actress Rita Wilson, both contribute $2,300 to Clinton in the second quarter. In the first quarter, Tom Hanks gave $4,600 to Obama’s campaign, the maximum allowed and is not contributing to Clinton’s campaign. I’d say Tom REALLY wants one of these two to win. Why the hedging?

“Hollywood is a place that is very cognizant and conscious of whether there is a second act or a sequel,” said Lehane, a former Clinton White House staffer. Lehane suggested while Hollywood types were initially dazzled by Obama, they may fear his luster will fade like so many Tinseltown one-hit wonders.

Maguire and Stiller are both giving more money now to Clinton than they gave to Obama earlier in the campaign.

Maguire gave $2,300 to Obama in the first quarter, and followed that with $4,600, the maximum donation to Clinton in the second quarter, according to the ABC News analysis.

Stiller, who starred with actress Cameron Diaz in the movie “There’s Something About Mary,” gave $6,900 to Clinton in the second quarter, which is considered a joint donation from him and his wife, actress Christine Taylor. Stiller also gave the maximum individual contribution of $4,600 to former Sen. John Edwards of North Carolina in the second quarter. Stiller gave $2,300 to Obama in the first quarter, but nothing in the second quarter.

“They are particularly attuned to the notion that a successful presidential candidate, like a successful actor or director, needs more than just a great introduction or a great opening act,” said Lehane. “That’s not to say that Obama will not give people an equally stirring sequel to his first act, but people have yet to see that yet.”

Clinton Attracts Tom Hanks, Tobey Maguire, Paul Newman and Danny DeVito

Lehane suggested actors, actresses and directors had been closely watching the debates and liked Clinton’s strong performances.

“These people evaluate performances as part of their life,” said Lehane, “and she’s done extremely well over the course of the debates and that’s generated a strong second wave of support for her in the second quarter.”

Old-school Hollywood types seem to have Hilary’s back, perhaps because of their understanding and appreciation for her experience and longevity.

Clinton attracted second-quarter financial support from Paul Newman and his wife, Joanne Woodward, who each gave the $4,600 maximum. Woodward also gave Obama $4,600 in the second quarter.

Danny DeVito and his wife, Rhea Perlman, who played the role of Carla on “Cheers,” both gave Clinton $2,300 in the second quarter, as did “The Nanny” actress Fran Drescher and television actress Joely Fisher. Actress Lily Tomlin gave Clinton $2,000, and civil rights activist and actress Ruby Dee gave Clinton $250.

In the first quarter, Clinton received money from Candace Bergen, Chevy Chase, Mary Steenburgen, Christine Lahti, Kate Capshaw and Jamie Gertz, among others.