Bob Nardelli is living on borrowed time as CEO of Chrysler.

Rick Wagoner is quitting as chief executive of General Motors, after the White House forced him out as a condition of the latest round of corporate bailout money. Chrysler, too, is set to get its share of loans from the government, but, thus far, Nardelli isn’t being asked to leave.

True, there are differences between Wagoner and Nardelli. Wagoner has led GM since 2000, while Nardelli took over Chrysler after its Cerberus-backed buyout in August 2007. And GM has been in much worse financial shape than Chrysler.

But Nardelli will be on a very short leash, and look for Congress to question his every move.

You see, he has a compensation problem.

When Nardelli resigned as CEO of Home Depot in 2007, he was essentially run out as a result of his pay. Not only that, he was criticized by shareholder activists for ignoring investor concerns about his pay. Indeed, at a May 2006 annual meeting, he refused to answer questions from shareholders and gaveled the meeting to a quick close, ignoring shareholders who wanted to exercise their rights by asking questions and making comments to the board. Nardelli and Home Depot would later apologize for the spectacle.

When Nardelli quit Home Depot in 2007, he drew more ire by walking away with a $210 million golden parachute – even though his tenure did little to boost Home Depot’s stock price.

In fact, House Financial Services chairman Barney Frank, D-Mass., was critical Nardelli back then, calling the severance package “out of control.”

Frank’s words back then echo now in the controversy over bonuses paid to AIG executives and any compensation going to CEOs of financial-services companies that have taken federal bailout dollars.

Perhaps Nardelli has learned from the experience. He was, after all, the first of the Big Three auto execs to agree to take just $1 in pay.

How Nardelli structures his future compensation will judge how hard a time the government gives him – and Chrysler – in the coming months. Already, the government has suggested that Chrysler isn't viable and its future lies with  Fiat as a partner, not as a standalone company. That doesn't speak well to Nardelli's turnaround skills.

Given the public outrage over outsized compensation and taxpayer fatigue with bailouts and stimulus, Nardelli shouldn’t expect the government to give him the benefit of the doubt.

"Profit and earning ratios are starting to get to the point where buying stocks is a potentially good deal if you've got a long-term perspective on it."

Sage advice from a Wall Street market strategist?

Hardly.

That was direct from the mouth of President Barack Obama.

Traditionally, presidents don't comment on the markets. They know it's a path that usually leads to no good. Presidents are not stock pickers. And their words can move markets. Indeed, stocks recovered somewhat from a midday slump after Mr. Obama made the comment, in a media availability with British Prime Minister Gordon Brown.

Yet, given the market selloff over the past several months, might it not be a good idea to cheerlead stocks? Don't extraordinary times call for throwing out the rulebook?

Here's why the answer is no. The President needs to stay out of the markets for the markets to operate efficiently. Even at a time when it seems the government is as inolved in stocks as it has ever been, it's still a bad idea for the head of the nation to guide people in how to save or invest their money. People respect the office, and follow the advice, and the president should not have the responsibility to guide private citizens' nest eggs. It is beneath the Office of the President.

Plus, he could well be wrong.

Look at it this way: There were plenty of folks who pull down paychecks who called the bottom in the fall. And in December. And in January. And now.

In fact, looking at P/E ratios to guide overall market valuation is more of an art than a science. Some see an oversold market now. Others still see more selling yet to come. And market history has shown us that we can go through long periods where stocks barely move at all.

One last point: For all his appeal, charm, charisma and success, President Obama doesn't do the stock market for a living. If he did, he would be as hesitant as everyone else to recommend someone increase their stock allocations.

After all, many of those who offered that advice over the past year are now out of jobs.

Now that's a problem worthy of the president's time and attention.