If John McCain wants my vote he must dump Sarah Palin and fast. Judging by the latest polls showing Barack Obama moving ahead and gaining traction, I'm not the only one that feels this way. The outcome of the election is key to investors worried about a range of issues including the $700 billion federal bailout of Wall Street.

Obama may lack the experience I would hope to see in a presidential candidate but to quote a friend and fellow McCain supporter "Sarah Palin is an idiot and the only way she should be allowed in the White House is if she buys a tour ticket." This is not a unique sentiment given the Sarah Palin must go stance taken by conservative columnist Kathleen Parker of the Los Angeles Times. She says her cringe reflex is being exhausted.

I do not like Obama's proposals on capital gains taxes, a windfall oil profits tax, new government programs and several other issues, but the idea of Palin being second-in-command is a joke. And speaking of jokes, if I have misjudged, and McCain and Palin win the election, then Oprah will be surpassed as the wealthiest female in the entertainment industry. The new titan will be 30 Rock and former Saturday Night Live star Tina Fey who will be racking up fat paychecks based on the never ending material supplied by Palin.

As a registered independent who voted for Obama on Super Tuesday, I was interested in reading BusinessWeek's take on Obama's likely impact on the U.S. economy. Its conclusion is that Obama is thoughtful and refreshing and is willing to work with business leaders, many of whom may reject him because he does not hew to the Republican line on taxes.

Last Friday, while Guest Hosting CNBC's Squawk Box, I spoke with Obama's economic advisor, University of Chicago professor Austan Goolsbee. He made two points that I found interesting. First, he said that Obama is very enthusiastic about the prospects for the U.S. economy and the stock market. Second, he suggested that Obama was months ahead of Hillary Clinton in proposing an economic stimulus package.

I asked Goolsbee what he thought was the cause of the economic slowdown. He thought the problem was the cash-strapped consumer and that tax rebates were the solution. I argued that the problem is that banks lack sufficient capital to offset the write-downs they're taking in the wake of the evaporation of demand for the Collateralized Debt Obligations (CDOs) they hold. Goolsbee thought this was a secondary problem and did not embrace my proposal to recapitalize the banks.

In the midst of all the bad news it's hard to imagine the stock market ending the year higher than it started. However, that is entirely possible and probably much better than a 50/50 bet. If you want to play it safe consider buying into an index fund or exchange traded funds (ETFs) instead of banking on individual stocks.

For broad coverage you cannot beat the Vanguard Total Stock Market or the Total International Stock funds with the lowest fees and longest history in this area. I think it has also been generally accepted investing strategy over the last few decades that in bearish markets there is a run to quality and "guns and butter" stocks. If you were to follow this old adage you would be considering three sectors, healthcare, defense and consumer staples.

Mutual funds and ETFs (with less history) are less volatile and offer greater diversification than most investors could achieve, and at much lower cost. If you dollar cost average over the next few months you should also be able to smooth out some bumps in the current market.

When the political machine goes to work to juice the economy the market has most often responded positively. That does not mean it's smart for the country, but since when is a politicians first thought about the country.

When the Federal Reserve Board meets later this month to consider lowering interest rates, it seems the question will once again be -- by how much? Chairman Ben Bernanke and crew have been bringing up the rear for over a year, doing what they are supposed to do ... fret over inflation.

This next meeting might find them doing an about face. Oil prices have been coming down in the face of disappointing economic news, and if that continues Fed Officials may feel they have enough political cover to act. The next meeting of the Committee will be held on Tuesday-Wednesday, January 29-30, 2008.

After the last meeting, the Street was disappointed by the 25 basis point reduction in rates. When the "baby did not get it's bottle", the stock market responded with a 300 point drop in the DJIA. This time, I do not think even a cut of 50 basis point will be taken seriously by Wall Street market makers if the next two weeks are similar to the last two weeks. I think expectations are high that the Fed will make a significant move and 50 basis points would be the minimum. But that might be just a blip, coming too late, since the impact would trail the cut by six months at least.

Some might say that President Bush started fiddling with things during his first election. Many in the opposition certainly felt that one of the Bush's was fiddling with something down in Florida. In any event a whole lot of fiddling has been going on since that time. Whatever credit he wants to take for the economy because of his tax cuts (think manipulation or confuscation) of which I am a benefactor, I think it is more delusion on his part.

The real reason as most would acknowledge, even if it is in hindsight, has been the easy credit. We have heard of dumb money -- this was stupid money or insane money -- but fiddle he did. And now that the house (deflated of course) of cards is in the process of coming down, along with the value of our currency we do not see anyone stepping up to shoulder the blame or offer true leadership how to improve our position. Instead we see a lot of finger pointing.

So any day I expect to see President Bush pick up a fiddle just like Nero, position himself on the balcony and start to whip out a tune. As he does, you can just picture Hillary Clinton ordering him to be gently lifted out of the White-house while he continues to play, not realizing that his time has past and it is her turn to point fingers.

Even though Hillary Clinton appears to have high negative sentiment in certain corners, it is also looking more and more like she can start thinking about running mates. Not publicly of course, but the nomination seems to be hers to lose on the Democrat's side. On the Republican side there does not seem to be a bounty of ideas, and none of the candidates will be able to help themselves in any way by linking their futures to Bush or any recent successes of the party. As it stands now, no matter who wins the Republican nomination, it is hard to run on $100 a barrel oil, 40% less potent dollars, no game plan for Iraq, growing deficits, and more.