According to the Reuters report, a McCain campaign spokesman said:

"John McCain believes that victory in Iraq must be based on conditions on the ground, not arbitrary timetables. Unlike Barack Obama, that position will not change based on politics or the demands of The New York Times," said McCain campaign spokesman Tucker Bounds.

That's a curious response to a request for McCain's definition of victory. It sounds like McCain either has no clue what our objectives in Iraq are, or that he wants as much wiggle room as possible to be able to declare victory as whatever the circumstances happen to be when it becomes politically expedient to declare victory.

If / when oil from Anwar, off-shore, or shale ever makes it to the market, the increase in supply will lower the price of the oil, at that point in time. Supply, demand, and the price of a good or service. That is Econ 101.

I beg to differ. You seem to have forgotten Cartel 101.

If we can't produce enough oil to replace a substantial fraction of OPEC's output, OPEC can simply cut their production as needed to keep the price where they want it. They can even force the price higher to make up for the money they might otherwise have lost because of reduced output.

I think it is foolish to assume we can have any significant effect on the global oil market when our potential production is such a small fraction of the total market volume.

If you want to do something to reduce the price of oil in the short term, I'd suggest that we stop sending jobs overseas and buying stuff from overseas manufacturers.

The huge trade deficit is causing a continual exodus of money from the U.S., which is forcing the government to create more money to meet expenses. This has really hurt the value of the dollar, which is one factor in the increase in the price of oil. When dollars aren't worth as much, you have to spend more of them to buy the oil.

China, India, and other recipients of our largesse are using the money to compete with us for oil, which drives the price up even faster.

It would also help our economy if more people could get decent-paying jobs.

... and then explain to me how the sight of them is harmful to children.

Had we drilled in Anwar when Bush proposed it, that oil would be on the market today.

So what? There isn't that much oil in the wildlife reserve. The maximum production rate we can reasonably expect wouldn't be much compared to OPEC's output, so OPEC could easily afford to throttle their own production a bit to keep prices high. If we try to compete by pumping faster, we'll just empty out the wildlife reserve's supply sooner, and then we'll be right back where we started.

The basic problem is that the U.S. only has about 2 or 3 percent of the world's oil supply, but is responsible for 25% of global consumption. There's no way to play this small stash of oil into a market-changing strategy.

What specifically, does either of them, Obama included, bring to the table?

Why does anybody have to bring anything to the table?

For years, Republicans have opposed government actions to reduce emissions and/or improve vehicle mileage. They insisted that no action was needed because the invisible hand of the marketplace would take care of everything when the time came.

The time has come, and the invisible hand is doing its work. This is exactly the result the Republicans have been promising all along. This has been their plan for the last 30 years. Nothing we do in the next few months will make up for thirty years of negligence, so we might as well enjoy the ride.

By the way, Salon readers, when a country like Iran can push you out of entire region, as they will in the next 3-4 years, your country is no longer a super power.

Are you suggesting that we should stay so that we can continue to think of ourselves as a "super power"? If so, exactly what benefits do we realize by thinking that we are a super power?

At the moment, they are protected by U.N. resolutions, American law and the personal commitment of President George W. Bush

Those sound like great reasons to get several international law firms involved.

We need to outlaw everything that's been invented since the Renaissance

Why bother? If we do our utmost to remain dependent on oil by extracting it as fast as needed to keep up with demand, we will lose all of those things in the catastrophe that comes when we really do run out.

I think we're much better off trying to kick the oil habit now, when doing so is only intensely painful. If we suddenly run out of oil and have no viable alternatives in production, the results will make armageddon seem like a picnic.

And the other misleading claim . . .

that McCain has always supported our troops.

What about the update to the GI Bill, which McCain opposed?

No contradiction here. McCain has always supported keeping the troops in their place so they can continue to be used as cannon fodder in political shows like Iraq.

I'm so glad that the Obama campaign stands for a civil debate of the issues.

...

Hey don't blame me for what I didn't say.

I love the way you blame the Obama campaign for jeffersonian's words, and then chide jeffersonian for blaming you for things you didn't say, all in the same post.

Your arguments might be more credible if you supported them by providing a list of Republican economic policy successes.