Sometimes, the market works in mysterious ways. This isn't one of those days.

The Dow Jones industrial average plunged more than 234 points to 12,543.95 after Citigroup Inc. (NYSE: C) posted a record $10 billion loss, retail sales were weaker than expected, and oil prices declined, dragging down energy stocks. The Nasdaq Composite Index, fell 58.70 to 2,419.60 and the S&P 500 index dropped 32.10 to 1,384.15.

In an interview with Bloomberg News, veteran market pundit Laszlo Birinyi said, "There seems to be no end of bad news. Trying to bottom-fish may work when you're out there angling, but I'm not sure it works with financial markets.''

Good point. Investors in volatile markets often forget that stocks, such as Citigroup, are cheap for a good reason. Trying to pick a bottom in this market is going to be difficult because there hasn't been anything quite like the subprime mortgage meltdown.

So far, it's been a topsy-turvy presidential race. Of course, now the pundits are pontificating on how the pollsters missed the Hillary Clinton victory in New Hampshire.

But, there was also a big miss on the international gambling markets.

That is, on the Intrade prediction site, there was a 100-to-1 odds bet for a Hillary win (the website is based in Dublin, which I presume is a bit friendlier than the U.S. about online gambling). Yes, a mere $100 wager could have turned into a cool $10,000.

For the most part, the thinking is that Intrade tends to be fairly accurate. After all, the "profit motive" can be very powerful.

But sometimes things go awry.

So what's the sentiment on Intrade? Yes, people are wagering that Hillary will become the nominee (with a 59% probability).

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.

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.

Barack Obama is the odds-on favorite -- for now -- to win both tomorrow's New Hampshire primary and the Democratic presidential nomination, according to traders at Dublin-based Trade Exchange Network Co., where people can buy and sell "shares" in political events.

The Illinois senator, who upset Hilary Clinton in last week's Iowa caucuses, stands a good chance of repeating his success in tomorrow's New Hampshire primary. The Trade Exchange's Intrade system shows Obama with a 90% change of winning the New Hampshire primary, to Clinton's 8.7% and John Edwards' 0.6%. Obama is being given a 66% chance of winning the nomination, compared with 32% for Hillary Clinton and 3% for John Edwards.

On the Republican side, traders are expecting John McCain to have an easy time beating back former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney, with an 82% chance of victory to Romney's 14%, in line with conventional wisdom. Chances for Iowa caucus winner Mike Huckabee and former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani appear somewhere between slim and none. McCain retains the edge to win the nomination, with a 4 percentage point lead on Giuliani and double-digit leads over the remaining candidates, online traders say.

Though the data is interesting, people should take it with a grain of salt -- no make that a truckload of salt. The political winds blow in many different directions as primary season heats up. Remember, it wasn't that long ago that pundits expected Clinton and McCain to win their respective primaries easily.

Much as I would like to ignore them, there is no escaping the Iowa caucuses. Every pundit within 1,000 miles of Des Moines is weighing in on their meaning, or lack thereof. But there is one message coming loud and clear from the campaign from average voters that will continue to be heard, regardless who wins the hearts and minds of Dubuque: We're scared.

Consider that consumer confidence ended the year on a negative note. Oil prices are at or about to pass $100. The real estate market continues to scrape along the bottom. People are unhappy about the war in Iraq and Afghanistan. They are unhappy with president. They are unhappy with the Democratic-led Congress. All of this crankiness is a great boon for the Democrats and a potential problem for Wall Street.

John Edwards, perhaps the most anti-corporate candidate, is in a statistical tie with fellow Democrats Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama. Anti-tax zealot Ron Paul continues to break fund-raising records even though he stands no chance of winning the Republican nomination. Republican Mitt Romney, who made his fortune in private equity and would presumably be Wall Street's friend, continues to struggle against economic populist Mike Huckabee. Rudy Giuliani, another potential Wall Street friend, is avoiding Iowa and New Hampshire because he's probably going to get beaten badly there.

As the election heats up, so will the anti-corporate rhetoric. Remember that many voters don't know the difference between a stock and a bond, and think 401 is a type of Special K. Fear, uncertainty and doubt will play a large role in determining the next president, and that's why the markets are going to remain volatile for quite some time, regardless of how many times the Federal Reserve cuts interest rates.

Hitwise is a top-player in analyzing Internet traffic. So, why not look at the data to predict the results of the Iowa caucus?

Well, according to Hitwise, Barack Obama is the clear winner (as well as in New Hampshire). In fact, over the past month, he got 31% more Internet traffic than Hillary Clinton.

OK, what about the Republican side? The clear winner is reengage Ron Paul, who has become a darling of the internet crowd.

Also, there is another predictor to look at – that is, the market trading on the Intrade futures market (according to a piece in Reuters). The results show that Obama is going to be the winner. And, on the Republican side, it's Mike Huckabee.

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.

Yesterday afternoon, Hillary Clinton was on CNBC with Maria Bartiromo, discussing her plan for protecting some homeowners who are in danger of losing their houses due to resetting subprime mortgages. It was supposed to be an interview, but it was more of a spat, and showed the deep pro-Wall Street bias that is typical of much of the financial media.

Clinton claimed that Wall Street played a major role in creating the subprime mess and was looking for support from the Street for the plan to freeze mortgage rates for some borrowers. Bartiromo couldn't hide her strong disagreement with this argument. Her basic point was: What about personal responsibility? Why are people who entered into contracts being bailed out? And she all but shouted, You liberal! Violating the sanctity of contracts! Interfering with the blessed Free Market!

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.

From the home office in Burlington County, New Jersey, I give you the top 10 reasons why the stock market is tanking yet again today.

Number 10: Britney Spears. The beleaguered pop diva's new album Blackout is getting positive reviews, surely a sign that the nation is going to hell in a hand basket. If that doesn't cause people to sell their stocks and hide their money in holes in their backyard, I don't know what will.

Number 9: Britney Spears again. For those readers over 21, I should note that the latest single from the bad decision maker is called "Gimme More," which is certainly apropos to the market. Yesterday, the Fed cut interest rates, and pundits reacted the way my two-year-old nephew reacted when he got candy last night at Halloween. Yup, he wanted more. But the question is whether candy man Ben Bernanke will continue to dole out sweet, cheap money to fill up investors' plastic pumpkin pails.

Number 8: The housing market. Try as I might, I couldn't find a way to blame Britney for this one. About the only real estate market that's doing well are sheriff's sales. Home foreclosures doubled in the third quarter. As more adjustable-rate mortgages reset to higher interest rates, more people are bound to lose their homes.

Number 7: ExxonMobil (NYSE: XOM) and oil prices. Maybe it's karma or crack spreads but the world's largest oil company not only reported a decline in quarterly profit but its biggest decline in three years. Oil prices hit $96 per barrel today, and one economist predicted $120 oil next year.

Two things you need to know about Googlefight.com, a website my husband discovered a few days ago. First, it is in no way affiliated with or endorsed by Google (NASDAQ: GOOG), although I'm sure free publicity is always appreciated. Secondly, it can quickly become the cause of profound procrastination. The innovative but simple site simply compares two inputs (provided by the user) and ranks them in terms of their respective number of results gleaned from Google's search engine. Each "fight" takes mere seconds, and the time passes quickly as animated stick figures slug it out.

Of course, I had to start with my own name (I probably think this blog is about me). I pit myself against a co-worker who also has a unique name (Mark Fightmaster). Aha! Google FIght found 634,000 results for "Beth Gaston Moon"; 57,200 for Mark (I do have about 6 years of seniority over him at our company, so that was hardly fair). But when compared against Pamela Anderson, I lose, 634,000 to 7.73 million (I have a feeling they round their numbers).

Some other matches I conducted before begrudgingly heading back to work:

• Hillary Clinton (9.1 million) defeats Barack Obama (2.62 million)
• Fred Thompson (10.6 million) defeats Rudy Giuliani (2.05 million) - to be fair, this may be pulling for more than one "Fred Thompson."
• Ben Bernanke (2.62 million) defeats Alan Greenspan (1.96 million)!
• Steve Jobs (88.5 million) defeats Bill Gates (44.6 million)
• Howard Stern (2.09 million) defeats Don Imus (1.98 million)
• 50 Cent (68 million) defeats Kanye West (6.72 million), despite what the numbers say
• O.J. Simpson (15 million) narrowly defeats "criminal justice system" (14.4 million)
• Mets (26 million) defeats Yankees (22.9 million)!
  

The site is hardly scientific, but it's interesting and certainly fun. According to Google Fight, some of its classic battle royales include God v. Satan, Luke Skywalker v. Darth Vadar, and Mohammad Ali v. Mike Tyson. Victors are God by a landslide, Vadar (hooray!), and Ali (again, by a hefty margin). Let the madness begin here.

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

It looks like president Bush will succeed in his effort to leave the Iraq problem to his successor. Now he is struggling mightily to borrow enough money to push the reckoning for the U.S. economy into his successor's lap. And who will Bush's successor be? If you ask him, the answer is Hillary Clinton. Polls indicate that Clinton is leading the Democratic pack and is preferred over her potential Republican rivals.

Bush used tax cuts, record budget deficits and record levels of government borrowing -- which he wants to raise to $9.8 trillion -- to create the illusion of a healthy U.S. economy. But with Ben Bernanke's buyout bailout (BBBB) -- as I dubbed his 50 basis point rate cut -- the U.S. dollar is hitting record lows, according to Bloomberg News, which you can profit from. Now the The Goldman Sachs Group (NYSE: GS), which just reported a 79% rise in net income, has concluded that BBBB is working and, according to Bloomberg News, the credit crisis spurred by subprime mortgage problems is abating.

With its former CEO Hank Paulson in the Treasury Department, one wonders how Goldman out-traded its peers. Regardless, Bloomberg News reports that traders expect BBBB to continue -- with further rate cuts by January.

The official election is more than a year away; but the Democratic party is trouncing the Republics in the CEO money primary. According to Bloomberg News, some of George W. Bush's top 2004 fund-raisers, are now helping Democrats running for president.

Among the 60 executives writing checks to Democrats such as Senators Hillary Clinton of New York and Barack Obama of Illinois are these formerly pro-Bush CEOs:

• Morgan Stanley's (NYSE: MS) CEO John Mack, a Bush Ranger, held a fund-raiser for Clinton in July. He wrote to his executives "I personally believe that [the best] person [running for president in 2008] is Hillary Clinton."
• Yahoo Inc.'s (NASDAQ: YHOO) former CEO Terry Semel gave $2,000 to Bush in 2004 and $50,000 to the Republican National Committee. Semel has given the maximum, $4,600, to Clinton and $2,300 to Obama.
• News Corp. (NYSE: NWS) CEO Rupert Murdoch, who donated $25,000 to the Republican National Committee in 2004, has given Clinton $2,300.

Democratic front-runner Sen. Hillary Clinton owes her fellow Senator Larry Craig a huge debt.

The scandal involving the Idaho Republican has deflected the media's attention from the revelations of dodgy campaign contributions her campaign received from fugitive California businessman Norman Hsu. Craig is a much better story. For one thing he's a conservative Republican with close ties to social conservatives who is so out of touch with reality that it's comical. His "I am not gay. I never have been gay" statement convinced no one.

What makes Craig's downfall so dramatic is that it came from a high perch of moral superiority that Republicans seem to like to inhabit more than Democrats. There also have been rumors about Craig's allegedly secret gay life since the early 1980s when there was a scandal involving members of Congress having sex with male pages. Craig, a Congressman at the time, issued a statement denying rumors that he had been implicated. He reportedly is now close to resigning.

A top-tier investment bank like Goldman Sachs (NYSE: GS) might seem like it would logically be a supporter of the traditionally more pro-business GOP. But the company's CEO, Lloyd Blankfein, is casting his lot behind Senator Hillary Clinton. According to a PR put out by her campaign, Blankfein said that "As a New Yorker, I have seen firsthand the outstanding work Hillary Clinton has done as a senator, proving herself to be a strong and experienced leader."

Morgan Stanley (NYSE: MS) CEO John Mack, a formerly vocal supporter of the current President's candidacy, is also supporting Ms. Clinton. So what gives?

While it would be cynical to assume that these men cast their votes solely based on the interests of their employers, that could be one factor. The Democrats have been, by and large, vocal supporters of leveling the tax playing field between large private equity firms and the investment banks with which they compete. Having a firm like Blackstone (NYSE: BX) paying less in taxes puts Mack and Blankfein at a competitive disadvantage: If two firms are bidding for a deal and one has to pay twice as much in taxes, guess who's going to be able to bid the most on the deal? As a Senator from New York, Clinton is the logical choice for these executives.

Of course John Edwards was quick to attack Clinton for being supported by an investment bank. Wait, didn't he work for a hedge fund and receive compensation in the high six-figures? Oh yeah, he did that to learn about poverty. In a related story, Barry Bonds claims he used steroids to learn about how hard it is to compete as a drug-free athlete.

John Edwards has attacked Senator Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama for accepting donations from News Corp. (NYSE: NWS) and Rupert Murdoch. Here's a sampling of his rhetoric:

"News Corp's purchase of the Dow Jones Co. and The Wall Street Journal should be the last straw when it comes to media consolidation. I'm challenging every Democratic presidential candidate to refuse contributions from News Corp executives and return any they've already taken, beginning with Rupert Murdoch."

"John Edwards will never ask Rupert Murdoch for money -- he won't accept his money."

"The basis of a strong democracy begins and ends with a strong, unbiased and fair media –- all qualities which are pretty hard to subscribe to Fox News and News Corp. It's time for all Democrats, including those running for president, to stand up and speak out against this merger and other forms of media consolidation."

But according to DealBook, "News Corporation claims that its publishing unit, HarperCollins, paid Mr. Edwards a $500,000 advance -- and $300,000 in expenses -- for his 2006 book, Home: The Blueprints of Our Lives.

Oops. Don't you hate it when you get caught?

And as for "speaking out against this merger," hasn't Mr. Edwards heard of the free market? If Rupert Murdoch wants to buy Dow Jones (NYSE: DJ), and Dow Jones wants to sell, how or why should it be blocked? It's really not an anti-trust case at all, as far as I've heard.

The only thing more hypocritical than this would be if Mr. Edwards spoke out about poverty but worked at a hedge fund for a large salary. Oh wait ...