Devoted to Managers and those that seek to improve their management skills

At the Reuters Investment Outlook Summit this week, John McCain, the Republican presedential candidate, was seen as the best choice to move the economy forward. Much of the edge came from his intentions to extend the current tax cuts of the Bush administration, cut corporate taxes, and get rid of the Alternative Minimum Tax.

Obama on the other hand, who has been running on the platform of change, is offering the tired old idea of raising taxes on the productive wealthy. Some type of refundable tax credit has been offered by Obama as well.

"My personal opinion is I would argue that McCain is probably the better candidate for the economy and that is more or less because of his tax policies," James Caron, head of global rates research at investment bank Morgan Stanley, said at the Reuters Summit.

A number of others at the summit agreed with Caron, including David Bianco, chief U.S. strategist at UBS Investment Research, who said concerning McCain, "My view is that McCain is better for the market."

I find this interesting in that McCain is definitely the stronger candidate for national security. If he's also considered better for the economy, that doesn't leave Obama much to hang his hat on.

With this being true, why then is Wall Street donating more money to the Democrats than they are the Republican candidate for the first time in decades? They're simply hedging their bets at this time. While they prefer McCain, there's a lot of unsurety on who will win the election.

Wall Street knows what McCain will do, and McCain will do it if he says he will. Obama on the other hand is a complete unknown, and they have no idea which direction he'll take if he wins the presidency. The donated money is some type of good will offering to the Democrats to remind them Wall Street backed them as well.

With most considering the first week of the presidential campaign being won by McCain, and the distance between him and Obama narrowing, many are scratching their heads as to why McCain isn't swooping in and taking advantage of his strong momentum at this time. It could come back to haunt him if he doesn't get more aggressive when the time to do it is ripe.

Another thing McCain should do, if he had the will, would be to push for drilling in Alaska, the lower states, and off the U.S. coasts, as people are more open to it possibly than they've ever been. That could launch McCain into a big lead. McCain's problem is he's decided to follow the no drilling route, and that is a mistake he needs to rectify.

He could do it without looking like he's flip flopping by saying something like he couldn't support drilling gas at $2 a gallon, but at $4 a gallon we need to change that policy. At this point about 60 percent of Americans support starting to drill again. Both candidates need to hear that message.