The first major economic act of presidential hopeful Barack Obama will be to add Hillary Clinton to the lower half of the democratic ticket. If he does not, he will be throwing caution to the wind.

All indications are that he does not want to do this and hopes he will not have to -- but he may not have any choice.

It is just good business and if he is too stubborn, too arrogant, or just misguided by favorable polling numbers, he should think again. There are many Hillary supporters who will find McCain more centrist than Obama and switch parties. There will be very few, if any, to the right of McCain who will vote for Obama. They are more likely to not vote than support Obama.

Adding Hillary Clinton, in most people's eyes, will slam dunk the presidential race and if Obama does not make this tough decision, putting success in front of politics and personalities, then I am afraid all his talk of being able to stand up to special interests and take the heat in the kitchen is just that.

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

Last year I wrote a story in support of Exxon's massive profits, arguing that they were not extraordinary given the company's size and that many other companies, large and small, had much higher profit margins. I could have re-posted the same story this year since Exxon Mobil (NYSE: XOM) reported similar results and the same short-sighted folks whined about it in the same knee-jerk reaction. The stock closed last Friday at $85.37 per share, up about 13% in a year, not including the 1.7% yield.

In last year's article I even commented on the difficulty XOM faced in dealing with Mr. Putin and Mr. Chavez, and I guess my words rang all too true given the current mess in Venezuela. In order to play on the world stage, you have to be big and this is particularly evident in the oil business.

So I'm on record that I do not mind Exxon's size or profits. Let me go further and state clearly that I also support its lawsuit to freeze Venezuelan assets until XOM is compensated for the theft of its investment. If it were not for Exxon's investment and technological know-how, the government and people of Venezuela would be a lot poorer.

Some of you may view presidential candidate Hillary Clinton's getting all choked up about her passion for the fate of the nation as making her more human, more real, and less like a stiff politician. I, on the other hand think, she gave it all away. She may have lost ground to Barack Obama in the Iowa Caucuses, and she will likely lose still more ground today in the New Hampshire primary, but I think that bit of humanity that she displayed will do her in. The presidential race will get harder, not easier.

Clinton has enough campaign money and personal fortitude to go the distance, but that video of her breaking down into a tender emotional "softy" is not what is going to get the first potential woman president elected. If Clinton were to be the Democratic Nominee for president, that moment will be front and center in the Republican campaign. Look for campaigning to start emphasizing personal strength more and more.

Think of Dukakis in the tank. Hillary's watery eyes are that scene and she has tanked her campaign. I cannot help but think of the old story about how for the want of a horseshoe nail, the horseshoe was lost; for the want of a horseshoe, the horse was lost; for the want of the horse, the general was lost; for the want of the general, the war was lost ... all for the want of a horsehoe nail.