Oil prices are high and a way to bring them down is to increase supply. To anyone that follows how the oil market works, it probably isn't something they would see as a "solution" but politically, it's a sure thing. People understand supply and demand to an extent, but they don't understand why Japan is an exporter of oil when they have no supplies of their own. So yes, while the X number of barrels could supply 2 years of our oil, it won't actually. It will go into the global market like all the other oil does. We don't exploit our natural resources to feed our own consumption, that would be protectionism and not good for prices. We are free markets all the way. But most people see more oil = less prices. If it doesn't work, we have such short-term attention spans that we'll never remember who actually put off-shore drilling into action.

The problem with this though is that that oil is going to get drilled one day or another. ANWR is too. It's all because we do not have any worthwhile alternatives for 99% of our transportation oil use. This is what I don't understand. Moving to cleaner energy forms is economically as well as environmentally a wise choice in the long term (hell, using reusable bags at the grocery story is too). But what we have now is the results of our government lacking foresight to deal with these issues. Thus, McCain comes in and "knows" how to deal with the issue in a way that common voters can understand. It doesn't matter what he did in the past, the situation has changed and he is responding to it. This is "leadership" in his eyes and probably seems like it to a lot of others. From my perspective, what he is doing makes perfect sense. If he had a better campaign to sell that position, I'd actually be worried about it. What democrats need to do is put this issue to rest by actually passing a long-term plan to deal with transportation energy issues using both the economic and environmental issues to sell it and make sure it works. If they don't come good on something all that oil in Alaska and the coast will be gone. Obama so far has not impressed me with his plans. This should be the forefront of his campaign.

Obama on FISA, is doing the political thing too. He knows his credentials aren't good on foreign policy, terrorism, and the like. He also knows that the high in the sky thoughts and talking points from the universities will not play with regular voters. I sat at my friends' graduate school graduation last week and some of the people next to me, all family members of masters of public affairs students, were talking about the Supreme Court decision on Guantanamo. They thought it was a horrible decision, "these people are trying to kill us," etc. When Obama "compromises" on the FISA bill, he's doing it for political reasons. Most people don't think about what is the right thing to do based on the facts, they think about what is the right thing to do based on what they believe. That is the reality. They want the terrorist to get caught and if "you aren't breaking the law, you shouldn't be worried about it." I saw this type of belief in classes I TA'd, and I even hear it in the coffee shops on the fringes of the Seattle city limits. That is America. I heard somewhere that it is easier to change your beliefs to your voters than to change your voters to yours. This is definitely what Obama is doing here because he has to.

However, maybe that's what they should be doing. This is politics. What is wrong with both of these positions? They can't hold online classes for everyone in the country to see the tenets behind their decisions, they need to respond to what voters of the country want. This is how it is supposed to work right? Perhaps there can be an argument made for pandering, but I think listening to your voters and making whatever decision you can within the system you work is what leadership is about. The other type of leadership is what we had for the past 8 years. So maybe we should step outside our liberal blogs/letters/websites and see who is actually out there and what they are about first, then we can critique the actions of our representatives and what they are doing. Because for me, this isn't very surprising from either candidate.

I'm really disappointed in his answers right now. When he says "we need to invest in wind, solar, and biofuels" I cringe every time. Two of those don't do anything for transportation energy and the third is a horrible idea in the long-run.

You know, I'm not sure what to do but that isn't really the point. The point is Obama or McCain should. This is a country wide issue that can be solved by federal incentives yet each has really nothing to offer. Honestly, if we drilled in ANWR, offshore, and got rid of the federal gas tax - that would at least show some lessening of prices. Voters might respond to that, as ill advised as those ideas are, if Obama can't deliver on something we all understand and see as a solution for the future of transportation energy.