I realize that it's not a reason to pick a president, but if you care about your stock portfolio, you'd be better off with a Democratic president. How so? Peter Siris of Guerrilla Capital has run some numbers -- comparing an investment of $10,000 in the S&P 500 under Republican administrations to the same investment under Democratic ones. He permitted me to preview these numbers which will run in his New York Post column on November 3rd.

Since 1929 both parties have controlled the White House for 40 years and Siris estimates that the $10,000 would be worth $11,733 under Republican administrations and $300,671 under Democratic ones. According to Siris, "for whatever reason, Republicans have been in office during the three worst stock market declines: The Great Depression, the early to mid-1970s, and the current market."

That may sound interesting but what about recent presidents? Under the Clinton administration, the S&P 500 rose the most in the last 60 years -- up an average of 17.4% per year. The only president who posted a negative performance is a familiar name -- George W. Bush -- under his administration, the S&P 500 has fallen 27% from 1,342 to 979. It's an exceptional record and one that I hope will never recur.

Peter Cohan is President of Peter S. Cohan & Associates. He also teaches management at Babson College and edits The Cohan Letter.

The Associated Press reports that President Bush will hold an economic summit to discuss why the world is such a mess and what can be done to fix things before the entire financial system goes down the porcelain toilet. Bush and French President Nicolas Sarkozy and European Commission President Jose Manuel Barroso announced the retreat at the Presidential retreat at Camp David.

No dates or locations have been set yet, but the first summit would focus on seeking "agreement on principles of reform needed to avoid a repetition of the problems and assure global prosperity in the future." Later summits will focus on specifics. What will come of all this? Absolutely nothing, if I had to guess.

The reality is that President Bush has little to no credibility at home or abroad, and this summit looks like a pretty desperate effort to remain relevant. Given that he has some of the lowest approval ratings of any president in history, and substantive discussions about reform will likely have to wait until the new guy is sworn in.

It's not yet known whether the president-elect will attend the summit but, if he does, lame duck Bush's presence will be irrelevant.

There's an old adage that you've got to give sometimes in order to receive. Nowhere is that more true than in modern-day politics where the level of candidate scrutinization had reached epic heights. While no politico myself, I do recognize a savvy move when I see one, and I think I just spotted one.

Obama just released his 2000-2006 tax returns into the public domain and is now urging Hillary Clinton to do the same. Why subject your filings to the public sphere? This armchair pundit believes that Obama knows something about the Clinton filings and is upping the ante to push them to the same level of disclosure.

But once we've got the filings, what do they tell us about Obama? Well, Bloomberg is taking the Obamas to task for not quite giving as charitably as they could. In an article out today, Bloomberg writes that the Obamas gave less than 1% of their 2000-2004 income to charity.

When President George Bush prepared for his final State of the Union address, his speech writers definitely had their hands full, with recession fears, and growing impatience over the Iraqi war looming on American's minds. He put on a good face, and did his best to assure Americans that all was OK, but did the American people buy it?

Bush's second term as America's 43rd president has been a rocky road. The President has dealt with low approval ratings, resulting from growing disapproval over the war in Iraq, and most recently the mortgage crisis and slowing economy. Earlier this week, he tried to reassure the country that things were in good shape, and that the country had good things to look forward to in 2008.

The main thing on the minds of most Americans right now is a possible recession getting ready to hit the country. While the President admitted that "growth is slowing," he pointed out that the benefits from a recently agreed upon stimulus package would go a long way to fight off any looming recession.

The package cleared its first hurdle recently with the House of Representatives passing a $146 billion recovery package. Now it moves on to the Senate where its future is a bit more uncertain.

I seriously enjoy reading Ina Steiner. She's the editor of AuctionBytes.com. I like her stuff because she's just so damn objective. She simply lays out the facts and lets you come to your own conclusions. I also like Ina because she continuously holds a very bright light directly at eBay (NASDAQ: EBAY).

Recently, Ina opened the floor at the AuctionBytes blog for discussion about the involvement of Meg Whitman in the Mitt Romney campaign. Needless to say, the situation has raised some eyebrows. Personally, I don't care what direction either Meg or Mitt choose to go. Ina's readers, however, had a very dim view of the situation. My question is, has Meg's insurgence into the political realm affected the shareholders of eBay?

Forget for a moment all the ill conceived plans that eBay has tripped over. Ignore the Skype debacle, the eBay China crash, the silencing of Stubhub and the host of other demons that in my opinion the Whitman crew has set loose, buried or denied. Forget for a moment about all that cash flowing into eBay coffers with nothing better accomplished than to outsource customer service and to pay Whitman's salary. Ignore the wolf at the door in the form of Amazon Inc.(NASDAQ: AMZN). Never mind that eBay has lost its shine and reputation and is yet to pay a dividend to its shareholders. I'm talking about presidential politics and corporate wrangling here.

Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. (NYSE: WMT) has gained a powerful ally in its quest to be known as the greenest company on the planet. Former U.S. President Bill Clinton is trumpeting the company's efforts and practices in the area of ecological sustainability. Clinton's three-day 'Clinton Global Initiative' will end today with a panel on economic growth in the face of decreasing resources and climate change.

Clinton has toured the world as a private citizen touting green strategies and corporate sustainability, so it's no surprise that he's recognized Wal-Mart in this manner. His comments during the Clinton Global Initiative were witnessed by Wal-Mart CEO H. Lee Scott as well. Clinton stated that Wal-Mart alone could set a template on how to reduce waste and increase sustainability to developing countries. That's quite an endorsement.

But, not so fast. Democrats in the U.S. constantly chide the world's largest retailer for its labor practices and health insurance costs, and one of the biggest former Democratic leaders sings its praises? Why sure -- this has nothing to do with labor on the surface. Clinton did say that if the retailer can generate wealth and jobs while reducing its carbon footprint, other companies will follow. I'm not sure how 'being green' will generate jobs (and good ones at that).

Clinton then made several references to the amount of energy saved by Wal-Mart customers buying and using compact fluorescent light bulbs (CFLs) among highlighting other moves by the company in recent years to minimize the impact it has on the world's environment. On that note, later today I'll be looking at Wal-Mart's recent moves into sustainability and operating in the 'green' in detail, so stay tuned for another edition of The Wal-Mart Weekly this afternoon.

A top-tier investment bank like Goldman Sachs (NYSE: GS) might seem like it would logically be a supporter of the traditionally more pro-business GOP. But the company's CEO, Lloyd Blankfein, is casting his lot behind Senator Hillary Clinton. According to a PR put out by her campaign, Blankfein said that "As a New Yorker, I have seen firsthand the outstanding work Hillary Clinton has done as a senator, proving herself to be a strong and experienced leader."

Morgan Stanley (NYSE: MS) CEO John Mack, a formerly vocal supporter of the current President's candidacy, is also supporting Ms. Clinton. So what gives?

While it would be cynical to assume that these men cast their votes solely based on the interests of their employers, that could be one factor. The Democrats have been, by and large, vocal supporters of leveling the tax playing field between large private equity firms and the investment banks with which they compete. Having a firm like Blackstone (NYSE: BX) paying less in taxes puts Mack and Blankfein at a competitive disadvantage: If two firms are bidding for a deal and one has to pay twice as much in taxes, guess who's going to be able to bid the most on the deal? As a Senator from New York, Clinton is the logical choice for these executives.

Of course John Edwards was quick to attack Clinton for being supported by an investment bank. Wait, didn't he work for a hedge fund and receive compensation in the high six-figures? Oh yeah, he did that to learn about poverty. In a related story, Barry Bonds claims he used steroids to learn about how hard it is to compete as a drug-free athlete.

There's something about Barack Obama that Wall Street likes. He raised more money in the most recent quarter than candidates in either party and according to the New York Times DealBook, "Wall Street money had something to do with it." Obama raised money from investment bankers and hedge fund managers and the President of Lehman Brothers.

For whatever reason, Senator Clinton has been less successful in raising money from Wall Street-types. But still this raises an interesting question: Why is a Democrat like Obama cashing in on Wall Street instead of Bain Capital founder Mitt Romney?

Here's one explanation: According to a piece in the Wall Street Journal, private equity firms are giving more to Republicans, "a shift from past fund-raising patterns as Democrats view the industry as a source of new taxes." And Romney is leading all candidates with fund raising among private equity firms.

My explanation: Private equity firms and traditional investment firms like Goldman Sachs are competing, and favorable tax treatment for private equity puts other firms at a competitive disadvantage. How can you compete when you're paying twice as much in taxes?

The Republican party has been embroiled in several high-profile scandals involving its corporate donors in recent years. First the Bush Administration came under fire for its close ties with former Enron executives, and then questions have been raised about Vice President Dick Cheney's relationship with his former employer, Halliburton (NYSE: HAL).

With the Democrats in charge of the Congress, corporate America is shifting its energy and dollars over there. According to the Wall Street Journal, "Big companies that have shifted their funding in Democrats' favor so far this year include General Dynamics Corp., whose PAC gave 62% of its $210,500 in contributions to Democrats in early 2007, compared with 64% to Republicans in the previous election cycle. PACs for Honeywell International Inc., Home Depot Inc. and insurer Aflac Inc. have also greatly increased the proportion of their giving to Democrats."

With issues like global warming, insurance regulation, and taxes likely to be hot-button issues in the coming months and years, corporations want to make sure the Democrats won't forget about them, now that they're in charge. But there's a little bit of irony here: Democrats were able to accuse the Republicans of being influenced by special interest groups and may have picked up votes with that argument. But now that Democrats are in charge, they are collecting more money and now it's Republicans that can make that charge.

Oh well. I'd much rather follow the battles between the Red Sox and the Yankees anyway.

When I first read this article from CNN Money.com, regarding the Obama/Edwards tag team against Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. (NYSE:WMT), my brain yelled, "Huh? What? Who?"

What are two liberal socialist Democrats doing taking potshots at Wal-Mart of all things? Egads, couldn't they even wait until after Christmas before tossing their first '08 presidential campaign grenade?

Illinois senator Barack Obama(D) and former Democratic vice presidential hopeful John Edwards, drew the sword Wednesday along with Wal-Mart watchdog group WakeUpWalMart.com to denounce Wal-mart Corporation regarding the treatment of their employees. The two politicians had to "back door" their appearance by going through the union assembled public group because it is perhaps bad form and too controlled to directly address the union through normal channels. The entire event was obviously exploited by Obama and Edwards in an attempt to gain increased appeal to the minimum wage sector.

I'm not a big fan of Wal-mart, but I don't like this political pawn pushing either. If Obama and Edwards are looking for grassroots brownie points, they've picked a pretty rude way to get them.

Those of you who have been worried about the jittery markets can breathe a sigh of relief. Everything will be just fine. Ya know how I know that? The man who declared mission accomplished in Iraq more than 4 years ago said it will be, gosh darnet.

According to the Associated Press, President Bush is confident that the markets will work their way through the turmoil and achieve a "soft landing".

"I'm not an economist, but my hope is that the market, if it functions normally, will be able to yield a soft landing," he said. "That's kind of what it looks like so far."

"So the conditions for a, you know, for the marketplace working through these issues are good, and that's how I look at it."

"The underpinnings of our economy are strong."

"I'm a glass half-full person."

Hmm... I'm all in favor of optimism, really I am. But for this President to see his glass half-full isn't optimistic. It's delusional. His approval rating is near a record-low of 37% -- 13 points below half-full. His credibility is so strained that I don't think anyone really cares about his analysis of the market. Any positive impact that his prognostication might have is likely to be offset by Mr. T's announcement that he "pities da fool who is long da Dow".