This post is part of a series in which TheStockAdvisors.com asked financial experts to name their top stock pick if McCain or if Obama wins the election.

"Obama's tax plan would give greater relief to the lower and middle classes; one retailer that would benefit from this is American Eagle Outfitters (NYSE: AEO)," says John Reese, editor of Validea, which follows the investment criteria of "legendary" investors such as Warren Buffett and Peter Lynch.

"Consumers have had to tighten their wallets and purses because of the slowing economy and rising food and fuel prices. Breaks for average Americans would be welcome news for retailers, which have sputtered amid the downturn.

"In the event of a retail surge, this teen-focused Pittsburgh-based clothing chain should be at the head of the line.

"American Eagle gets approval from two of my Guru Strategies -- computer models that are each based on the published approach of a different Wall Street great. What's more, the two strategies that like the firm are modeled after two of the greatest gurus, Warren Buffett and Peter Lynch.

"My conservative Buffett-inspired model looks for stocks with a lengthy history of steadily increasing earnings, as well as a conservative balance sheet.

"Eagle has grown earnings per share in eight of the past ten years, with EPS rising from $0.25 to $1.82 in that time, meeting the first criterion. In addition, the firm has no long-term debt, which my Buffett model loves.

An article in the latest issue of Barron's (log-in required) laments the decline of dividend-paying stocks. A quote form Morgan Stanley's Henry McVey is telling: "A lot of corporations are missing the seismic shift in retail demand for yield" and adds that Americans over 65 have equity portfolios with an average yield of 2.6%, versus 0.8% for those under 65.

I'm sure I'll get some angry feedback from the pro-dividend crowd on what I'm about to say here. I already got some flack for an earlier piece on the problems with dividends, and I frequently wonder why people care about yield. McVey's comment and statistic is telling. I believe that it is further evidence of the old-fashioned nature of dividends and their irrelevance in the current investment landscape.

The chief culprit behind the demise of the dividend is the advent of widespread share buybacks, and with good reason. Buybacks just make more sense, especially from a tax perspective. When you receive a dividend, you must pay taxes on it immediately. The increase in per-share value caused by a buyback is allowed to compound for as long as you own the shares. So buybacks start out ahead in that regard. It seems to me that the only reason you should prefer a dividend over a buyback is that you think that cash in your pocket (taxable) has a better future than additional shares of the company. If that's the case, it begs the question: Why do you own the stock?