Republicans and my colleague Aaron Katsman are trying to blame Democrat Barack Obama for rising gas prices. This is election-year politics at its worst.

For one thing, as the Washington Post and other independent observers note, drilling for more oil will do little to alleviate the pain U.S. drivers are feeling at the pump. The available supplies are probably not going to make much of a dent in our never-ending thirst for the black gold. Remember, the oil may not be as easy to get or cheap to process.

"Drilling off the coasts would increase U.S. oil production but have no short-term impact on gas prices," the Post says. "While some analysts disagree, an Energy Department report last year said production would not start until 2017 and have no 'significant' effect on prices or supplies until 2030."

An even more ridiculous idea floated by Republican John McCain is the so-called gas tax holiday, which has been roundly denounced by economists and Obama as a dangerous economic gimmick. Experts estimate that it would save the average consumer a whopping $30.

The Washington Times reports that Phil Gramm, UBS AG (NYSE: UBS) vice chairman and senior economic advisor to John McCain (R.-AZ), thinks we're a nation of whiners. Gramm's UBS is a leader on three important fronts in the effort to destroy the U.S. economy: the $1.3 trillion subprime mortgage catastrophe, the $330 billion Auction Rate Securities (ARS) freeze, and a tax evasion scheme of unknown magnitude.

The Washington Times quotes Gramm as saying: "We have sort of become a nation of whiners. You just hear this constant whining." UBS probably pays Gramm well for his services so I can see where he's coming from. He is making money and he's the only one who matters. But if you think he is helping McCain, think about these things:

According to The New York Times' DealBook blog, InBev has a significant partnership with Cuba to produce Bucanero beer, the second-largest player in the communist country's market.

In the the beer world, this deal is not very important since the island has a population of about 11 million. Besides, its economy is a mess.

"Government defaulted on most of its international debt in 1986 and does not have access to credit from international financial institutions like the World Bank, which means Havana must rely heavily on short-term loans to finance imports, chiefly food and fuel," according to Global Security Org. "Because of its poor credit rating, an $11 billion hard currency debt, and the risks associated with Cuban investment, interest rates have reportedly been as high as 22%."

The question of what would happen to InBev's Cuban business in the event the takeover of Budweiser is successful is an interesting one. Would the company have to divest the business to comply with the U.S. embargo or not do anything since it is not a U.S.-based company? Maybe the subsidiary could be operated through a non-U.S. InBev business. Regardless, it's a solvable problem from a legal and financial vantage point.

While I have no doubt I have no doubt the Belgian brewer will gladly say "adios" to its small Cuban beer business if that's the price it has to pay to complete its $46 billion hostile bid for Anheuser-Busch Cos., Inc. (NYSE: BUD), public relations is another matter.

It's time to start drilling for oil and natural gas offshore on the east and west coasts. We are wasting our time and our money, and risking our future by not doing so. The energy needs of the United States have made oil our number one import and the biggest factor in our imbalance of trade.

It is not just that oil holds us hostage to the rest of the world. This imbalance of trade means we cannot support ourselves and must borrow from others to get by, and I, for one, have a very hard time with that notion. I prefer independence -- remember that? I think it was an important concept in our founding, way back when.

The imbalance in trade is a mortgage against the future of our children and it is getting worse year after year. The money often goes to foreign governments whose interests are not aligned with ours and they hold us politically and economically captive. Nothing is more shameful than President Bush pleading with Saudi Monarchs to pump more oil.

Presumptive Republican presidential candidate John McCain's plan to award a $300 million prize "for the development of a battery package that has the size, capacity, cost and power to leapfrog the commercially available plug-in hybrids or electric cars " raises many questions.

For one thing, what does he mean by "leapfrog?" Does the McCain car have to be 10?% better? 20% better? or 30% better? Will a marginal improvement suffice? Moreover, who is going to decide whether the goal is met? environmentalists? the automakers? the government? These people can not agree on what we should do to reduce air pollution; I can't imagine the fights that will occur over what constitutes a technological "leap."

McCain wants the car to deliver a power source at 30% of the "current costs." Does that mean costs as of 2008 or whenever this wonder car is ready to be sold to consumers? How does he define "costs?" Is it the total cost of ownership or a reduction in the sticker price or something else entirely? Why limit it to batteries? What about hydrogen fuel cells whose only pollution is water vapor?

In a speech he delivered today, McCain pointed out that "right now we have a hodgepodge of incentives for the purchase of fuel-efficient cars." Indeed, purchasing a hybrid only makes economic sense for the most die-hard of tree huggers. But is the answer to skyrocketing gasoline price to be found in a contest? I am not so sure.

For the first time Monday I heard John McCain comparing Barack Obama to Jimmy Carter. I had heard this before in other arenas, but not from McCain. I guess that despite these two presidential candidates pledging to the American people to bring change and resist politics as usual, they are both, as usual as one could get.

Obama is being shaped by the pressures of running for office and to believe otherwise is delusional. I suppose one has to have hope but the effects of the campaign are becoming clear. Obama has been painting McCain as an extension of Bush, which is nonsense, and now in a typical tit-for-tat response, McCain is filling the air with Carter references.

Both McCain and Obama are wrong in their assessments of their opponents and they are becoming commoners to resort to the bottom of the barrel campaign techniques used in every campaign for most of our nation's proud history. Obama gave up the high ground too easily and McCain has decided he can sling mud with the best of them.

I have not decided who I am voting for yet. Or maybe it would be more accurate to say I have decided on multiple occasions only to become undecided again. While some will see me as fickle, or worse, others may be in the same boat.

I am also continuing to think about what difference any of the candidates can make on the economy, and based on these musings, where to invest. My current belief is that none of them will have a profound impact on our economy.

There are no financial wizards among them. Here is the shocker though: I like all three candidates, or at least can find some good in each of them. Each of them is a fighter, and I believe each one of them brings certain skill sets to the job. There are also things about each candidate that are inescapably negative. Clinton has so much baggage, Zsa Zsa Gabor would be jealous. Obama does not have the experience and he has a degree of arrogance (right sweetie); McCain is an old stick-in-the-mud who, as a long-time senator, has spent more hours with lobbyists than almost anybody, though he is pretending otherwise.

Where does this leave me from an investment perspective? My first choice, for stability with moderate growth and dividends, remains the defense sector. I wrote Defense sector rolls over S&P 500 for 8th straight year a while back and I still think that it is the most secure. Here's why:

A) None of the candidates will want to appear soft on defense when we are at war, and all three have made threatening remarks in some country's direction to make sure the electorate knows that.

B) The War in Afghanistan and Iraq rages on, and even the most optimist view is that a draw-down will take years.

C) Even if all war ceased immediately, the upgrading and replenishment of the hardware will cost billions of dollars and most of the defense contractors have that in their backlogs now. Chasing Value: General Dynamics & Raytheon -- The defense does not rest

Anyone looking for insights into Barack Obama's economic policy might want to take a look at how he has handled his personal finances. According to Slate.com, the Illinois senator and Democratic front-runner invests his money as if he were in his 60s instead of his 40s.

Thanks to the success of his two books "Dreams of My Father" and "The Audacity of Hope," the Obama family is wealthier than most. In 2007, the Obamas earned $4.1 million, thanks to the books that have sold more than 2.25 million copies, according to Bookscan data cited by Slate. Both John McCain and Hillary Clinton, however, are much wealthier. None are waiting with anticipation for their fiscal stimulus checks to arrive.

"Obama has not donated the proceeds from his books to charity, as John McCain has, but then Obama did not marry an heiress with $40 million in assets," Slate noted. Good point. In addition, McCain's wife Cyndi has refused to disclose her tax returns, which she files separately from her husband. That will be an issue during the general election. Bill Clinton's lucrative speech-making business has already caused problems for his wife's campaign.

Voters worried that Obama is a tax-and-spend liberal should take some comfort from the conservative -- Slate says too conservative -- approach in his portfolio that it is too weighted toward bonds and not enough toward stocks. Unlike former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney, Obama has no hedge fund investments or much of anything else exciting. Most of his money is in mutual funds.

"Unlike the average American, however, Sen. Obama had the wherewithal to save the maximum allowable amount ($45,000) in his retirement plan last year," Slate says.

Today's Washington Post reports on the latest successful purchase of John McCain's services -- yielding a sweet real estate deal for an Arizona developer in the wake of his $100,000 campaign contribution. But that railer against the role of money in politics appears to have been bought many times before -- and American workers and taxpayers have paid the price.

The Washington Post reports that McCain pushed legislation that let an Arizona rancher trade remote grassland and ponderosa pine forest there for acres of valuable federally owned property that is ready for development, a land swap that now stands to directly benefit one of his top presidential campaign fundraisers. Specifically, Steven A. Betts, who raised $100,000 for McCain, got the job of developing rancher Fred Ruskin's land after McCain's legislation helped Ruskin pick it up at below market rates.

But this is at least the fifth transaction where a campaign contributor has benefited from McCain's power. Here are five others:

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.

While Congressional Democrats and candidates for the presidency have spoken out in favor of more extensive help for distressed homeowners, the leaders of the Republican Party, including John McCain, have been more reluctant to support a bailout of people who bought houses they couldn't afford.

This is putting congressmen representing those areas hardest hit by foreclosures in a bind, as their constituents plead for help. What are they supposed to do?

This may be a case of a silent majority of people who oppose a bailout but aren't making much noise. People who are desperate to hang onto their houses tend to be louder than regular joes who just don't want their tax money being used for bailouts of irresponsible people -- Who wants to be seen as a judgmental curmudgeon?

I worry that politicians will compound the housing industry's problems because of political pressure, making doing the rational thing -- which may very well be nothing -- basically impossible.

When John McCain, in a rare moment of coherence got it right, the backlash was immediate, with an enthusiastic mob comparing him to Herbert Hoover.

The best bet for Republicans here is probably to stick to their guns on the no-bailout platform, and hope that the silent majority will get behind them.

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.

I never thought I'd be doing a post praising John McCain's wisdom, but here goes.

In the midst of calls from members of both parties for a big government intervention in the mortgage crisis, John McCain said in a speech in Los Angeles that "it is not the duty of government to bail out and reward those who act irresponsibly, whether they are big banks or small borrowers."

Exactly -- Senator McCain is saying what needs to be said but isn't being said because of election-year politics. Democrats and some Republicans appear to be making a bet that you will win very few votes by saying that some people should lose their homes.

He added that "Some Americans bought homes they couldn't afford, betting that rising prices would make it easier to refinance later at more affordable rates ... Of those 80 million homeowners, only 55 million have a mortgage at all, and 51 million homeowners are doing what is necessary - working a second job, skipping a vacation and managing their budgets to make their payments on time. That leaves us with a puzzling situation: how could 4 million mortgages cause this much trouble for us all?"

Over the past ten years, eBay (NASDAQ: EBAY)'s CEO, Meg Whitman, has had a love / hate relationship with eBay users. No matter what your personal thoughts are regarding Whitman, you have to give it to her; she did take eBay to levels no one would have dreamed possible just ten years ago.

Well, her tenure at eBay is coming to an end, and her next move is into politics, working high up in Senator John McCain's Presidential campaign.

Back in January, Whitman announced that she would be stepping down from eBay to pursue philanthropy and politics, and her first big step is going to be serving as co-chair of Senator McCain's national presidential campaign.

While we still have not reached the point of McCain being announced the official Republican candidate for the upcoming election, it is all but a forgone conclusion that McCain is going to be the Republican's choice for November's pivotal election in America. After a rocky eight years with George Bush running the show, the Republicans are definitely going to have their hands full with this year's election, and Whitman is coming on board to have a leading role in the campaign's financing and policy development.

The Associated Press reports that John "Freedom Fries" McCain employs former lobbyists for EADS, the parent of Toulouse, France-based Airbus, on his staff. EADS and Northrop Grumman (NYSE: NOC) recently won a $100 billion contract to build refueling tankers for the Air Force, edging out Boeing Inc. (NYSE: BA) which has filed a protest.

McCain now employs the people who lobbied for EADS on his own staff. According to the AP report, EADS retained The Loeffler Group to lobby for the tanker deal in 2007. Loeffler Group lobbyists on the project included Tom Loeffler, who lobbies for EADS and serves as McCain's national finance chairman; Susan Nelson, who left Loeffler and is now the campaign's finance director; and former Secretary of the Navy William Ball III, who has campaigned for McCain.

EADS also had a long-term relationship with Ogilvy Government Relations, formerly known as the Federalist Group. Ogilvy lobbyist John Green, who records show worked on the EADS account, recently took a leave of absence to volunteer for McCain as the campaign's congressional liaison.