Oil prices hit a 6 week high today, as cold weather gripped most of the country.

Over the weekend the nation was hit with a cold front that reminded oil traders that the high demand winter season is on its way, and could help reduce a lot of the oversupply that the market is currently looking at.

This post is part of our feature on Money Losers of 2008. See all 20.

Willard Mitt Romney, governor of Massachusetts from 2003 to 2007, was the wealthiest of all the 2008 presidential candidates. When he formally announced his candidacy for the Republican nomination for president on February 13, 2007, the former venture capitalist was believed to have amassed a fortune worth as much as $250 million.

After the first fundraiser for his presidential campaign committee on January 9, 2007, Romney had already brought in $6.5 million, more than the amounts raised by any other Republican contender. Meg Whitman, CEO of eBay and a former colleague of Romney, signed on as a financial co-chair of his presidential campaign. And first quarter 2007 fund-raising information showed Romney leading the Republican field with more than $23 million, though that was less than funds raised by Democratic contenders Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama in the same period. Fund-raising results for the second quarter revealed that Romney had lent $8.9 million to his campaign from his personal funds, as well as that he had spent $20.7 million, more than any other Republican candidate. By the end of 2007, he had raised $88.5 million, but $35.4 million of that came from his own pocket.

Winning the money race, strategically outspending other candidates on advertising in the early primary states, and promising to donate his salary as president to charity (as he had done as governor) wasn't enough to secure Romney the nomination. He dropped out of the race after disappointing Super Tuesday results in February 2008, when opponent John McCain solidified his position as the party's frontrunner. Romney won only 11 state primaries and caucuses, 4.7 million votes, and 291 delegates. According to Federal Election Commission filings, all told, the campaign spent $113.6 million, $44.6 of which came from Romney himself.

This post is part of our feature on Money Losers of 2008. See all 20.

Hillary Clinton is easily one of the most polarizing figures in U.S. politics. Perhaps it's because she combines the DNA of a female with the ruthlessness, grit, and cold-blooded calculation of the average male politician -- journalists never know whether to criticize her hairstyle, or her foreign policy credentials! (Governor Sarah Palin received similarly schizophrenic coverage: Yes, she's got an opinion about offshore drilling, but what kind of statement are those pumps making?)

In any event, it was a given that Hillary would run for president in 2008. As an idealistic, card-carrying young feminist, I'd personally been chanting "Hillary '08!" ever since I cast my vote for her in the 2000 Senate race in New York. Unfortunately for Ms. Clinton, it seems that most of her fervent supporters have a certain characteristic in common with me. No, it's not two X chromosomes; apparently, we're all broke.

When she suspended her presidential campaign in June, it was a bitter defeat for Hillary. Not only was she edged out in the primaries by an Ivy League rookie, but she also had to contend with a whopping campaign debt load. Reports indicate that the future Secretary of State poured $11.4 million of her own money into the campaign, just for starters. At the beginning of November, she still owed $7.5 million to various vendors, and the primaries haven't even been paid for yet.

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.

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.

Larry Kudlow, a right-wing market commentator on CNBC and WABC radio, has been trying to sell the idea that the market doesn't like presumptive Democratic presidential nominee Barack Obama and will surely tank if he's elected.

Kudlow claims: "Markets don't like Obama. If he wins alongside Democratic gains in the House and Senate, taxes are going up big time. [...] Interestingly, stocks have preferred Hillary in the Democratic fight...because markets believe they can do business with Hillary in a way they can't with Obama."

His proof? The day after West Virgina the Dow was up 66 points. But didn't everyone already know she would take West Virginia (if not by such a huge margin? Don't traders still buy on the rumor, sell on the news anymore? Do traders only belong to that dwindling club of Clinton partisans who believe West Virginia was another turn-around?

In the latest chapter of "Politicians must have something to say about everything," Hillary Clinton wants you to know that she doesn't like the fact that Exxon Mobil (NYSE: XOM) traded down after after reporting $11 billion in quarterly earnings.

Senator Clinton -- whom I would vote for by the way -- said that "There is something seriously wrong with our economy when Exxon's record $11 billion in quarterly profits are seen as a disappointment by Wall Street."

Then, in a twist that reminded me of watching a poorly coordinated fellow slam an ice cream cone into his forehead, Clinton added that this was further proof that the gas tax should be suspended.

Has Senator Clinton seen the number of SUVs on the road? And has she noticed that 60% of people are obese? I promise you they didn't get that way by walking everywhere to save money on gas. Given the state of the federal budget -- and the increasing concern about the impact of fossil fuels on the environment -- we shouldn't be doing anything to encourage increased use of fuel.

A separate issue that may of interest to investors: some analysts have suggested that Exxon is actually understating its profits -- and boosting capital investments -- in an effort to appease politicians. If that's the case, the stock may be cheaper than it appears at first glance.

Exxon Mobil Corp. (NYSE: XOM), whose huge profits have made it one of the most vilified companies in America, was brought down to earth today after posting disappointing earnings.

Net income at the world's largest oil company rose 17% to $10.9 billion, or $2.03 per share, from $9.3 billion, or $1.62 per share, a year earlier. Revenue rose 34% to $116.9 billion. Analysts had expected profit of $2.13 on revenue of $124.4 billion, according to Thomson Financial. Shares of the company fell.

Just because oil prices remain above $100 per barrel doesn't necessarily mean everything is going Exxon's way. For one thing, high oil prices resulted in "significantly lower" refining margins, which pushed down downstream earnings by $746 million to $1.16 billion. Lower margins also pushed down profit in Exxon's chemical business by $208 million to $1.03 billion. Moreover, spending on capital and exploration projects soared 30% to $5.5 billion "as we continued to actively invest in projects to bring additional crude oil, natural gas and finished products to market."

The problem is that's proving to be difficult. For one thing, production at the company's oil wells dropped as did natural gas production in the Middle East, The U.S., Canada, South America and Asia. This is happening as surging demand from the developing world is keeping oil prices at record levels. Exxon is "having trouble raising production, and that's not a good sign,'' Leeb Capital Management's Stephen Leeb told Bloomberg News.

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.

Hillary Clinton appeared on Jim Cramer's Mad Money recently, and faced some pretty tough questions about the economy, financial markets and regulation.

Senator Clinton shined. She came across as well-informed, and Cramer spent most of the interview agreeing with Ms. Clinton -- impressive given that he also spent an entire interview giving attaboys to Ron Paul.

Senator Clinton was also impressive in her discussion of executive compensation where she lashed out at excessive compensation without banging the populist drum that gets many Democrats a bad rap. She explained that executives should be rewarded for creating great wealth for shareholders and that the "pay for pulse" compensation at many of these financial companies threatens to kill the goose that laid the golden egg.

Be sure to watch the video, regardless of what you think of Hillary: you'll probably be impressed.

Whatever your political ideology happens to be, I think we can all agree on one thing: Given the complex economic issues currently facing our country -- many of which will continue to be important for the foreseeable future -- our next president must be someone who understand economics.

To that end, the latest issue of Barron's looks at the backgrounds of each candidate (subscription required), showing something troubling: McCain's financial expertise is pretty much limited to having married a rich woman. That's a good strategy to be sure, but not necessarily the best background for someone charged with dealing with the current mess. Advising struggling homeowners to scan the obituaries in search of newly widowed socialites might not go over well.

Then there's Barack Obama whose experience in the market is, according to Barron's, pretty much limited to having once lost $13 thousand on stocks acquired through a blind trust. Barron's writes that "Small wonder he's giddy to raise taxes on interest and dividends. Obama has little skin in the game ... He's as insulated from his own dividend and capital gains proposals as a penguin is from the cold."

Hillary Clinton's net worth is very high, but she owns little stock. Her experience on the board of directors at Wal-Mart (NYSE: WMT) is intriguing but, looking at the available information, one thing is clear: None of these candidates can be considered an economics expert, something that we badly need, although George W. Bush's MBA from Harvard did little to avert the current mess.

Perhaps we'll get our economics expert from the other half of the presidential ticket. Private equity titan Mitt Romney is rumored to be a possible pick for John McCain, and there is some speculation that Barack Obama could pair up with New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg.

Seeking to change the subject from her foreign policy exaggerations, Sen. Hillary Clinton turned her attention to domestic matters, proposing a $30 billion plan to help state and local governments reduce the number of foreclosures.

Moreover, she proposed creating a "high-level emergency working group" comprised of former Federal Reserve Chairman Alan "father of the mortgage crisis" Greenspan, former Treasury Secretary Robert E. Rubin and reported Barack Obama supporter/ former Fed Chairman Paul Volcker. The New York senator thinks the world needs another government study whose recommendations will be ignored.

"As much as she focused on ways to ease the mortgage crisis, Senator Clinton also dwelled on what she called 'a crisis of confidence in our country,' and portrayed herself as the candidate best able to address the economic problems of middle-income and economically struggling families," according to The New York Times.

Voters, though, are showing a lack of confidence in her. Odds of her winning are slim and none, according to Politico and other political media. That being said, the housing crisis and high oil prices will be the top issues in the campaign. Expect a billion or so commercials on the topics between now and November.

Freelance writer Jonathan Berr edits the blog Ketchup and Eggs.

Over the past ten years, eBay (NASDAQ: EBAY)'s CEO, Meg Whitman, has had a love / hate relationship with eBay users. No matter what your personal thoughts are regarding Whitman, you have to give it to her; she did take eBay to levels no one would have dreamed possible just ten years ago.

Well, her tenure at eBay is coming to an end, and her next move is into politics, working high up in Senator John McCain's Presidential campaign.

Back in January, Whitman announced that she would be stepping down from eBay to pursue philanthropy and politics, and her first big step is going to be serving as co-chair of Senator McCain's national presidential campaign.

While we still have not reached the point of McCain being announced the official Republican candidate for the upcoming election, it is all but a forgone conclusion that McCain is going to be the Republican's choice for November's pivotal election in America. After a rocky eight years with George Bush running the show, the Republicans are definitely going to have their hands full with this year's election, and Whitman is coming on board to have a leading role in the campaign's financing and policy development.

Tuesday's primary victories in Ohio, Texas and Rhode Island gave Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-New York, about all her campaign could hope for: solid performances and a chance to close the delegate gap in the next primary, in Pennsylvania on April 22.

Still, the delegate math remains rough for the candidate seeking to become the first woman nominated for president by a major U.S. political party. Sen. Barack Obama, D-Illinois, leads in delegates, 1477-1391, including pledged superdelegates, according to a Washington Post tally, and the Clinton campaign's strategy will now be to try to close the delegate gap to 60 or so with a win in Pennsylvania. Two caucuses, Wyoming and Mississippi, occur before the Pennsylvania primary, and Sen. Obama is expected to win each and increase his delegate lead heading into Pennsylvania.

In 187-delegate Pennsylvania, the demographics favor Sen. Clinton -- she's leading in statewide polls there - - and the Clinton campaign likes its chances. Pennsylvania has a large working class -- which, along with women voters and Latin-Americans, forms the bulk of Clinton's base. If Sen. Clinton registers a solid win in Pennsylvania, she can make the case that although Sen. Obama has the delegate lead, she has won in the major states of New York, California, Texas, Ohio and Pennsylvania, and probably would have won in Florida, had the delegate count been included in the Democratic Party's nominating process. That big-state coalition, and the fact that she's the candidate of the working class, would be two strong philosophical points as the campaign attempts to secure pledges from the to-date 353 un-pledged superdelegates. (Note: The number of un-pledged delegates is likely to decline by the end of the primary season on June 3.)