Despite excellent earnings from Boeing Co. (NYSE: BA) yesterday, a bit of a shadow still hangs over the company. That's because in February the Air Force awarded a $100 billion contract for in-flight refueling craft -- known as tankers -- to EADS's Airbus and Northrop Grumman (NYSE: NOC). Boeing is currently challenging this award. But an interview I did for my book on Boeing suggests that Boeing will not win this contract because George W. Bush and John McCain want to award the contract to Bush's new friends: France's Nicolas Sarkozy and Germany's Angela Merkel.

I got this theory from a veteran Wall Street analyst who covers the aircraft industry. He suggested that Boeing lost the Tanker bid because John McCain -- who is ranking member on the Senate Armed Services Committee -- had the Air Force change the specifications for the tanker bid so Airbus and Northrop would be able to field a competitive bid. My source noted that the one problem with the change was that the Air Force did not inform Boeing about it.

After the bid was awarded to Airbus, it became clear that the original specifications had changed from a small, 767-sized craft to a medium-sized 777 one. During the review process, my source contends that Boeing asked the Air Force if the 767-sized craft was what it wanted. Boeing also told the Air Force that it would be happy to bid with a different model if the Air Force wanted. But the Air Force told Boeing that it still wanted the 767-sized craft.

In describing the results of last night's Iowa caucuses, The Washington Post's David Broder minced no words: "Eight years after Iowa voters did the conventional -- sending George W. Bush and Al Gore on to meet in the election of 2000, they shook up the status quo in both parties as never before. The victories of Barack Obama and Mike Huckabee jolted the expectations of establishment candidates with far stronger conventional credentials."

The New York Times' David Brooks was similarly thunderstruck. "I've been through election nights that brought a political earthquake to the country. I've never been through an election night that brought two."

While I admit the results were exciting, there is something that people often forget that the Philadelphia Inquirer's Dick Polman argues they need to remember: "Incumbents aside, exactly one victorious Iowa candidate -- George W. Bush in 2000 -- has ever gone on to win the presidency in the same year. Even though (Jimmy) Carter got an historic boost in Iowa, on the way to his November election, he actually finished second in Iowa -- behind 'Uncommitted.'"

Oh, so all of the hot air that's been expounded in the past 24 hours over this antiquated political system is that one of the least representative states in the country may not actually mean much in the long term. That's unbelievable, but what's worse is that we are about to go through this whole exercise yet again in an equally non-representative state, New Hampshire.

I have been wondering lately if the sagging value of the dollar is actually going down through economic gyrations or being pushed down by design.

There are many repercussions. No one less than Rodrigo Rato, head of the International Monetary Fund, warned Monday of a potential "abrupt fall" in the US dollar that could roil the global economy. "There are risks that an abrupt fall in the dollar could either be triggered by, or itself trigger, a loss of confidence in dollar assets," Rato said at the close of annual meetings here of the IMF and the World Bank, according to news reports.

Here is what is really on his mind: Europe may take steps to temper the strong appreciation of the Euro, which is weighing on exports from the 13-nation bloc. "There is a risk that exchange rate appreciation in countries with flexible exchange rates -- including the Euro area -- could hurt their growth prospects, and that in these circumstances protectionist pressures could worsen," he said.

From my perspective I have wondered if the Bush administration is at least applauding the weak dollar as it improves U.S. trade imbalances, helps prop up the stock market and worried investment bankers, and strengthens American companies in many regards.

"Don't come whining to us with your problems" could be the summary of both President Bush's declaration Friday afternoon basically repeating the commentary of Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke earlier in the day. This is not to say that sympathy cannot be found for those home owners caught in the squeeze of rising interest rates and lower home values. However, people who entered the housing market late speculating on continued rising prices hoping for quick flips will be left without a chair because the music has stopped playing. All except the funeral march perhaps.

Big Ben said "It is not the responsibility of the Federal Reserve-nor would it be appropriate- to protect lenders and investors from the consequences of their financial decisions."

The New York Times reports that President George W. Bush is seeking to blame the housing market collapse on excess liquidity and views the current correction as normal. What are his goals? To keep "history" from blaming him for yet another "worst U.S. President ever" accomplishment.

As a "recovering alcoholic," Bush excels at motivating other people to cover up for his inadequacies (this is known as co-dependence). For instance, when his oil company, Spectrum 7, collapsed in 1986, he got Harken Energy to bail him out through his father's political connections. In the case of the current debt-fueled economic reversal, he has gotten his Treasury Secretary, Henry Paulson and Fed Chair Ben Bernanke to repeat the talking point that the subprime collapse is "contained" and won't affect the rest of the economy.

I think Bush is responsible for the housing collapse for three reasons:

We have been expecting to see this for a few days now, and today oil was finally able to close the session above the psychological $70 mark at $70.55, gaining $0.98 on the session. Earlier in the day prices were able to trade as high as $71.06 before settling down a bit to head into the weekend.

Today's close above $70 marks the first time in almost a year that prices have been at this level, with the last time oil was above $70 being back in August '06. The primary reasons behind the move today were more of the same that we have seen lately... concerns over gasoline surprises and political tensions around the globe.

American refineries have been the center of attention over the past couple of months with concerns over how well refineries are going to be able to keep up with the growing demand during the peak summer driving months. This week those concerns were once again brought to the surface after the weekly inventory numbers out of the Energy Department showed n unexpected decline in gasoline supplies. Analysts had been expecting to see a rise of 1.1 million barrels when in fact the numbers showed that gasoline stocks fell by 700,000 barrels.

I think Crocs Inc. (NASDAQ: CROX) wants you to consider the deeper story behind George W. Bush being photographed wearing Crocs beach shoes. Does he think they're stylish? I don't suppose he gives much thought to style. Does he find them comfortable? If he was after strict comfort, a cross trainer from Nike Inc. (NYSE: NKE) would do a better job on pavement. Is he giving a friendly endorsement opportunity to his buddy Rick Sharp? That's probably the gist of it, but wait, there's more. Think just a little bit deeper to the true message that was sent by President Bush wearing those shoes.

The Crooks and Liars blog reports that President Bush's approval rating is at 29%, its lowest point ever. I don't put much stock in polls, I never did, and I never will. The reason being that no matter how unbiased a polling organization claims to be, poll numbers can be very easily manipulated. Even something as simple as the time of day that opinions are solicited can seriously change outcomes, but that's not what I want to bring to you.

The matter is simply this: If President Bush was as widely disliked as the left-wing, mainstream media would like you to believe he is, do you really think that Rick Sharp would have put those shoes on him? The wearing of Crocs by George W. Bush was as much an endorsement of that man by a hip and young company as it was an endorsement of those shoes. The leftist spin-meisters can tell you all they want about how the nation hates Bush, but the fact of the matter is this: A flourishing retailer doesn't generally present its product with the use of disliked individuals.

You didn't see Crocs on the feet of Jack Kevorkian as he left prison, did you?

Looks like president Bush is in a negotiating mood and may be preparing for a more "can-do" type conversation with Congress. I was discussing corporate financial reporting with a colleague when I saw this story, which made me wonder whether there was a proper accounting of the war on the part of the government. I know the war is "off budget" and just lurks in the shadows of Washington D.C. while contributing to our national debt and ever increasingly having an inflationary effect. But is there a proper accounting?

This seems eerily familiar. Was it not Enron that in recent years fell from grace (once the 9th largest public company) because, in part, it juggled its books when the numbers did not look favorable? Strangely, it too had many "off budget" items not properly accounted for, hidden from shareholders -- are we not shareholders in our nation?

Like Enron, we find ourselves falling from grace. Not to be to bleak about the subject, but it concerns me that if the true figures were known to the public in a way they could relate to, we might lose more people to heart failure and depression than our military has lost to date fighting in Iraq. See: National Priorities Project Cost of Iraq War Notes and Sources for some figures and discussion on the subject.

Henry Paulson, former CEO of Goldman Sachs Group (NYSE: GS) and current Treasury Secretary, has been spouting pablum about how he's never seen such a strong global economy. He's just following in the footsteps of cheerleader-in-chief, George W. Bush.

But Paulson is no dummy. He knows that his words have a tremendous impact on investors around the world who are nervous about the recent rapid market break. The key question is whether he knows enough to keep all the economic imbalances in the global markets from making his optimistic comments look foolish.

I'd like to hear how he would keep the massive debt load which the U.S. economy is carrying from creating a sharp economic reversal. Specifically, if the economy is so strong, I'd like to hear Paulson explain away these questions:

We heard a lot of nice sentiment from President Bush Tuesday night but, alas, it is another case of too little, too late. (Or... is it never too late?) It would be great if the $18 billion in "pork barrel" spending he mentioned is really cut by restricting the ease with which our legislature can attach its pet projects to entirely unrelated bills under the cover of darkness. This is the equivalent of about seven weeks of spending on the Iraq war, at current levels.

It also begs the question as to what the administration was thinking until now, as we spent perhaps $100 to $120 billion during his watch on an abundance of special projects. If we give the President and his team credit for on-the-job-training the first year, even though every candidate makes cutting government spending a part of his platform, the administration should still have done something earlier, especially with Republicans steering this ship! This is very embarrassing -- and shameful!

It makes me think the attitude in Washington was that 'the Democrats got theirs, now we're going to get ours'.

President Bush will deliver his 2007 State of the Union (SOTU) address on January 23rd. My analysis of the impact of these speeches suggests that usually SOTUs have minimal market impact. But two such speeches in the last 57 years have been big market movers.

SOTU addresses seem to me like the governmental version of a human appendix. They made sense during our formative years when transportation and communication were slow. But these days -- with the Internet and cable news -- we don't need an SOTU to tell us how things are going. The fact is that each citizen's experience is so different that the state of each citizen's life varies almost daily. And, as I posted last month, Bush's 2006 SOTU was a laundry list of legislative agenda items -- most of which did not pan out.

Just as most SOTUs don't change laws, most SOTUs don't move stocks. That's the conclusion I reached after analyzing the movement of the S&P 500 a day and a week after each of the last 57 SOTUs. I found that the S&P 500 rose an average of 0.01% the day after these SOTUs and 0.26% a week after.

But this average masks some interesting exceptions. George H. W. Bush's 1991 SOTU drove the S&P 500 up 4.39% in the week after the speech during which he announced the wildly successful Desert Storm which was largely won by the end of the week. By contrast, Richard Nixon's first SOTU in 1970 -- where he announced balanced budget and anti-pollution measures -- stripped 5.08% from the S&P 500 within the week.

George W. Bush's SOTUs rank him seventh out of 11 presidents in their stock market impact. His average SOTU has cut 0.13% from the S&P 500 in the day after the speech and 0.11% in the week after.

Let's see how he does this year.

Peter Cohan is President of Peter S. Cohan & Associates, a management consulting and venture capital firm, a Professor of Management at Babson College, and editor of The Cohan Letter.

This post is written as part of AOL Money & Finance's Best & Worst of 2006. Vote for President Bush's fall from grace or see other nominees in this category.

U.S. President No. 43 has had a lousy 2006.

One way to judge President Bush's 2006 is to look at how much of what he wanted to achieve at the beginning of the year has actually been accomplished. By that measure, Bush did not fare all that well. Of the 14 agenda items he set out to achieve in his State of the Union address

• one got done,
• three were ongoing but two of these did not receive the increased funding Bush requested,
• on six, legislation was introduced but not passed, and
• four were unsuccessful.

Here are the details.

Although he did not complete his agenda items, the public judged Bush on Iraq and corruption in 2006. Contrary to his stated belief, the Republican party lost both houses of Congress in November. And a mere 31% of the American public approve of Bush's job performance.

Moreover, George W. Bush may not be the best choice in this category because he arguably did not begin 2006 with any "grace" from which to fall. Only 42% of the public approved of his job performance in January, which was eight percentage points below his January 2005 level. Will Bush return to a state of grace in 2007? That depends on how things turn out in Iraq.

Peter Cohan is President of Peter S. Cohan & Associates, a management consulting and venture capital firm, and a Professor of Management at Babson College.

U.S. President George W. Bush, who is fond of inserting the word "the" where it shouldn't belong, recently stated that he's used "the Google" to look at his Crawford, Texas ranch, where the President said he'd sometimes like to be (when he's not there). I guess standing up to legions of public scrutiny and international terrorists sometimes makes Bush want to crawl back to his ranch to relax, if that's even possible. Hey, we all have hard days, don't we?

But, this post is more than Bush using "the Google" to find things using "the Google Earth" program he downloaded from "the Internets." It's about how pervasive some of Google's offerings are, even in the White House.

Sure, Bush was prompted by a reporter's question into answering about his usage regarding "the Google," but notice that the reporter did not mention "Yahoo! Maps" or "Mapquest" -- he went straight to Google, Inc. (NASDAQ:GOOG).

Is that heavy brand power? Yes it is. But one thing is for certain -- Bush isn't using " the Gmail." When asked about his use of email, Bush stated "I tend not to e-mail ... I don't e-mail because of the different record requests that can happen to a president. I don't want to receive e-mails because, you know, there's no telling what somebody's e-mail may -- it would show up as, you know, as part of some kind of a story, and I wouldn't be able to say, 'Well, I didn't read the e-mail'. 'But I sent it to your address, how can you say you didn't?' So, in other words, I'm very cautious about e-mailing."

Although there's some confusing repetition there, I think I understand why Bush doesn't tend to e-mail. I think I understand.