There is no way to know why stocks go up or down every day. That's why I always find it somewhat silly when I see simple explanations for the movement in prices. The explanation offered for today's 494 point rise is that investors are celebrating the rumor that Timothy Geithner will be the next Treasury Secretary. How does the media know that investors are only celebrating Geithner's appointment and not that of Bill Richardson as Commerce Secretary?

Make no mistake. I agree with the choice of Geithner and made a case for him over former Harvard president, Lawrence Summers, and former Fed Chair Paul Volcker. My reasoning for Geithner was that he had excellent interpersonal skills and high energy coupled with an intimate familiarity with the current financial crisis. Unlike Summers, Geithner is highly unlikely to alienate people, and having picked Hillary Clinton as Secretary of State, President-elect Obama will have enough drama on his hands with both Clintons.

Geithner shares something with current Treasury Secretary Hank Paulson -- he graduated from Dartmouth. I hope that he makes far better use of that Ivy League education in the Treasury Secretary's role than his predecessor. While Geithner will be left with a huge mess that was not helped by his fellow Dartmouth alum, it will be difficult for him to do a worse job than Paulson. The world will be depending on him.

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

Are public attitudes toward the U.S. government's economic policy linked to housing prices?

There are other factors involved, but over the past three decades there has been a correlation between the two conditions, The New York Times reported.

When home prices are rising at a pace moderately faster than inflation, consumers tend to think well of the U.S. Government's economic policies, The Times reported, citing Haver Analytics.

For example, during the U.S. housing market's two, prior housing booms, 1984-1987 during the Reagan Administration, and 1996-1998 during the Clinton Administration, consumers, on average, approved of the government's economic policies, The Times reported.

The White House can certainly be a ticket to riches. Just look at Al Gore. Since leaving as vice president, he has made a bundle -- having been an early investor in Google (NASDAQ: GOOG) and a board member of Apple (NASDAQ: AAPL).

And with the release with Bill and Hillary Clinton's tax returns, we are getting more data points.

Interestingly enough, it looks like Bill was a big-time private equity operator. That is, he snagged $15.4 million (since 2003) from Yucaipa Cos. That's certainly a big chunk of Bill's earnings (which amount to about $75 million during this period).

But according to Bloomberg.com, Bill's role may have been more than just an investor. In other words, he may have been an influencer on deal-making.

And why not? Isn't it convenient to have the former U.S. president on your payroll? Absolutely. No doubt, Bill is the ultimate "door opener."

Oh, and I'm sure reporters will try to get some juicy details on some of Yucaipa's deals.

Tom Taulli is the author of various books, including The Complete M&A Handbook and The Edgar Online Guide to Decoding Financial Statements. He also operates DealProfiles.com.

The Associated Press reports that Bill and Hillary Clinton made $109.2 million in the years since they left the White House. According to Drudge Report, Bill was the big winner. Details include:

They paid $33.7 million in Federal taxes and gave $10.2 million to charity. I would not be surprised if Clintons have had the most successful post White House cash-in of any presidential couple. No wonder she wants to get back there again. Think of how much more she could make after being president!

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

It is not a revelation to state that Sen. Hillary Clinton's (D-New York) campaign has stumbled and is reeling.

It would be a revelation to argue that despite all of the advantages that public policy experience, party apparatus, and political contributions affords, Hillary Clinton could lose the 2008 Democratic Party Nomination, and to an upstart at that.

When one is trained in public policy and economics, you tend to view the world, at least the economic and political worlds, through a social science prism, and with that lens one can detect three Clinton campaign errors that have led to the current nomination process state-of-things.

The economy
To-date, the Clinton campaign has failed to emphasize Clinton's biggest strength: how she would fix an ailing U.S. economy. Clinton has at least five policy proposals that speak directly to what many Americans need economically; she'll have to emphasize these to secure the nomination.

If you can't pay back the bank, the bank takes your house or your car. If a stock you own loses its value, there's no collateral you can go after to cushion your loss. This is why Bush's debt recession will be far far worse than Clinton's equity one.

The stock market in the last year of George Bush's term is following a pattern that reminds me of the last year of Bill Clinton's. The Clinton market tumble -- where the NASDAQ fell in March 2000, rose through September 2000, and then began a straight down plunge through January 2001 -- preceded a brief recession in 2001. But I think that the Bush recession -- following Dow and broader market quakes in March 2007, August 2007, and the 14% decline since the October peak -- will be much much worse.

The reason? Clinton's recession was driven largely by a collapse in equity prices, while Bush's will be driven by an implosion in the value of debt. Before focusing on what Bush's recession might look like, it's worth remembering that Clinton's was driven by the collapse of the NASDAQ as the dot-com bubble burst. It also involved debt -- $1 trillion worth of borrowing by fiber optic network builders like Global Crossing that went bankrupt when they couldn't pay their debts as their customers, the dot-coms, went belly up.

[Note: This is the second of a two-part series on the race for the Democratic Party's nomination for president of the United States. Read part one: Obama's New Hampshire strength highlights Clinton's vulnerablity]

Clinton's mistakes

Why didn't Clinton win by a bigger margin in the New Hampshire primary? The main reason was a misguided campaign strategy that presented her in too many town meetings and gymnasium forums, and not enough as a concerned, positive, relating, trustworthy leader and as a real person. Clinton has never been accused of not being intelligent or organized or professional: what she has been accused of is lacking that "likability" and "press the flesh" quality that every modern presidential candidate -- and every president -- must display.

Ironically, Hillary Clinton's campaign strategy in Iowa and New Hampshire departed from President Bill Clinton's winning presidential campaign strategy. What was an example of President Clinton's positive vibe? During his campaigns, when Bill Clinton arrived at a location for a speech and there were 400 people lined up outside of the hall, who couldn't get in, waiting to see the candidate, Bill Clinton wanted to shake the hands of all 400 people outside. No joke. Clinton would arrive one hour, two hours late for an event, if it meant he could shake hands and make positive, personal contact with as many people as possible. Hillary Clinton must do the same: she must be real, show that she cares, and show that's she's human, just like everybody else. That's a big part of what Hillary Clinton must do to move forward and win the Democratic Party's nomination.

There's an old political adage that goes, "Regarding the nomination process, Republicans fall in line, Democrats fall in love." Tuesday's New Hampshire primary provided ample evidence of the above, for each party.
Sen. Barack Obama's (D-IL) strong showing instantaneously catapults him to formidable contender status in the Democratic race. His performance also suggests -- and we won't know this empirically until survey research has been analyzed -- that he has expanded the electorate. Obama increased voter turnout particularly, and unexpectedly, among voters ages 18-21. This age group has had the lowest turnout rate of any age group in primaries and presidential elections since 1952 when political scientists began keeping statistics.

Obama's appeal among independents was also high, and -- also troubling for the campaign of Sen. Hillary Clinton (D-NY) -- his appeal among Democratic Party-affiliated voters was much stronger than expected. Furthermore, African-American voters -- although not a major factor in New Hampshire -- now appear to be shifting decidedly in his direction nationally, a big change from the previously overwhelming support they gave to Clinton as late as this summer. As a result of the latter, look for the Clinton camp to face a markedly tougher fight in the South Carolina primary, which is the next hurdle, along with Nevada, before Tsunami Tuesday (formerly called Super Tuesday), on February 5.

Remember in 2004 when Sean Combs Puff Daddy P-Diddy Diddy helped champion the "Vote or Die" campaign? Yeah, me neither. But for decades, attempts to get the younger generation to the polls have been critical parts of our major elections. I still remember watching Bill Clinton on MTV in the summer of 1992, lamenting the fact that I was only 18 and unable to vote.

A new President will be elected in about 50 weeks, and Walt Disney's (NYSE: DIS) ABC Networks is planning on using new media to help educate the social-networking crowd about candidates and news along the campaign trail. The network has inked a deal with Facebook -- in which Microsoft (NASDAQ: MSFT) owns a small stake -- to provide news reports and video for the nearly 60 million members of the website. Facebook members will also be able to participate in polls and debates.

ABC and Facebook have announced plans to jointly sponsor Democratic and Republican Presidential debates in New Hampshire on January 5, three days ahead of the critical primary election in the Granite State. Dan Rose, VP of business development for Facebook, told The New York Times that "Through this partnership, we want to extend the dialogue both before and after the debate."

The agreement was not of a financial nature. ABC News will have exposure on an increasingly popular site; Facebook gets free, fresh content for its political section.

Beth Gaston Moon is an analyst at Schaeffer's Investment Research.

Congratulations to former Vice President (and woulda-coulda-shoulda president) Al Gore on receiving half of the Nobel Peace Prize this week for his strident work in the area of global warming. The news added fuel to the fire that Gore might insert his name on the long list of presidential candidates, even this late in the game.

If he enters the race, he would do so challenging Democratic front runner Hillary Clinton for the nomination, after serving as vice president under her partner and currently greatest supporter President Bill Clinton. Can you hear the backroom politics going into full swing at this very moment? No doubt there are phone lines on fire in Washington, New York, and California as I type.

Hillary wants to be president so bad she can taste it. If not for her ambition, Mr. Clinton might have been lodging with some foreign legion in a remote part of the world many years ago. Gore does muddy things up a bit for a lot of hopeful folks. If he ran it would add a lot of excitement to what is getting to be a more and more boring presidential campaign. Meanwhile after winning the "Prize," Gore passes Obama for Democratic nomination. Another twist if Gore runs (50/50 odds) is that polls still show him as a long shot to receive the nomination over Clinton. Perhaps Barrack Obama and Gore joining forces (a Gore/Obama ticket) might make some advances if they announced early -- but this would burn some bridges neither wants to burn.

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.

Over the weekend, we had a wide range of "Money Face-Off's" here on Bloggingstocks, and I brought you the face-off between Alan Greenspan and Ben Bernanke. In discussing Greenspan, I noted that one of the main ways a Fed Chief can stay in power for as long as he did was to keep his Presidents happy. Now that Greenspan is no longer under the thumb of President Bush, he obviously feels no such responsibility, and that is made evident in the harsh comments he has on the current President in his book, "The Age of Turbulence: Adventures in a New World," due to be released today.

Even though the book was not scheduled to come out until today, the Associated Press got its hands on a copy over the weekend and quickly pointed out that the former Fed Chief has some pretty nasty things to say about our current President, as well as on the future of the economy in his much anticipated memoirs.

In his book, Greenspan said that the greatest frustration he had with President Bush was his consistent unwillingness to veto "out-of-control spending." Let's remember that Greenspan is a well-known Republican, so watching an administration ignore party doctrine and move away from small government principals has to hurt a bit, especially when that government is being led by another member of the Republican party.

They say money can't buy you time, but tell that to Sumner Redstone, the 84-year-old chairman of Viacom Inc. (NYSE: VIA). He spoke of his addiction to a health-drink in a recent issue of Fortune. He loves it so much, he's pushing it to all his mogul friends.

His beverage of choice these days? It's called MonaVie, a dark-purple drink with a cult-like following. Allegedly chock full of antioxidants, one of its main ingredients is the Brazillian acai berry (pronounced A-sigh-ee), well known among health nuts for its anti-aging properties. It'll set you back $40 a bottle (no problem if you run in Sumner's circles), and it's sold only via private party, like Tupperware. Or Avon.

Redstone told the magazine that he was first hipped to the drink by Viacom executive Bill Roedy on a trip to Germany in January. Then he learned that his butler's sister-in-law was a fan as well. Well, what more endorsement does one require?

He bought a bottle and tried it for himself. Now he's gulping down four ounces a day. "Since I've been on
MonaVie," I haven't taken a sleeping pill," he told the magazine.

So enamored is he of the purple elixir that he slipped a bottle to Bill Clinton and Wolfgang Puck at a recent party, according to the magazine. "Just about every friend I have is on it," he said. Fans include Michael Milken and Boston Red Sox pitcher Jonathan Papelbon.

No reports yet on how Clinton likes the stuff. But it's probably only a matter of time before celebrity chef Puck introduces a meat dish with a MonaVie reduction sauce.

Former President (and potential First Man) Bill Clinton is taking another stab at authorship. Possibly following the humanitarian lead of his former right-hand man, Al Gore, the former commander in chief is publishing a book on citizen activism, titled Giving: How Each of Us Can Change the World.

The book will be released on September 4, according to Knopf Publish Group (a division of Random House ... which is a unit of the privately held Bertelsmann AG). The initial print run will total 750,000 copies.

In an accompanying quote, the sax-wielding democrat noted that his observations of workers' devotion to various charitable organizations around the world have proven to him that "almost everyone -- regardless of income, available time, age and skills -- can do something useful for others and, in the process, strengthen the fabric of our shared humanity."

Clinton already has a good track record in the nation's bookstores. His 2004 memoir, My Life, was a leading seller for Knopf; the 957-page book sold more than 2 million copies in the U.S. alone and was printed in more than 30 countries. According to The Washington Post, it managed a fist-day nonfiction sales record of 400,000 copies.

Beth Gaston Moon is an analyst at Schaeffer's Investment Research.

Bill and Hillary Clinton are liquidating their stock portfolio, , according to the New York Times. Of their eight biggest holdings -- you might consider bidding for two: Time Warner, Inc. (NYSE: TWX) and The Home Depot Inc. (NYSE: HD).

The reason for their decision to sell the stocks is to avoid a conflict of interest. This spring, a government directive also ordered her, as a presidential candidate, to dissolve her blind trust and disclose all of her assets to the public. The move will cost the couple "substantial amounts" in capital gains taxes and force them to forgo the potentially higher returns from these stocks.

But do these stocks really have that much potential? I don't know since I can't predict the future. Of the eight stocks of which the Clintons own between $250,001 and $500,000, I think they should be happy to sell one, I am on the fence about five and you should consider buying shares of two. Which are which?