Professional financial advisers are apparently among the stupidest people on the planet:

...According to 205 advisers surveyed by the Brinker Barometer, a quarterly gauge of financial adviser confidence and sentiment towards the economy, 36% of advisers said former New York Mayor and Republican candidate Rudolph W. Giuliani would have the most positive effect on the U.S. economy and investing.

...When asked, "Which candidates would be worst for the U.S. economy and investing?" Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, D-N.Y., garnered 60% of the vote, followed by John Edwards, another Democratic presidential candidate and a former senator from North Carolina (13%). Mr. Obama got 12% of the vote, followed by Mr. Giuliani (6%), Mr. McCain, (6%) and Mr. Romney (4%).

"Being such a Republican-dominated industry, Hillary Clinton is despised because she represents everything that Republicans dislike," [Bruce] Fenton [president of Atlantic Financial Inc. in Norwell, Massachusetts] said....

Sixty percent? Hillary gets more than four times as many negative mentions as anyone else?

Guys, excuse me: Do you even remember the 1990s? The stock-market records? The balanced budgets? The widespread sense of economic well-being? Now, think really, really hard: Do you remember who was the president's wife, and one of his closest advisers?

I could understand if these guys thought all Democrats were equally bad for the economy -- despite plenty of evidence to the contrary, that's what we're all told to think. And I could understand if they singled out John Edwards, who's talking economic populism. But Hillary?

This is because these guys are thinking with their hormones. There's no thought involved. They're just stupid macho boy-men, and Hillary simply repulses them more than anything in the world, except possibly gay sex. Rudy, by contrast, is a cigar-smoking guy who seems to have Gotham by the short hairs, so they all have a big man-crush on him.