I think Obama's next proposal involves a pony for everyone, with sparkles on the saddle and pretty ribbons in the mane.

Obama also missed an opportunity last week to vote for cloture on HR.6049 which, among other things, extended the PTC/ITC. He and McCain both skipped the vote, but if he had shown up he could have used McCain's absence as a bludgeon.

steve duncan: I think Obama's next proposal involves a pony for everyone ...

Makes sense. I could save a lot of gas by riding a pony to work, and my kids would love to have one!

What's next, peak oats?

Obama is showing no spine at all lately and I can't discern if it is him or his advisors. I thought there was no way he could lose this election against the Alzheimer's patient with the marsupial pouch on his neck, but now I am not so sure....

Did Jesse Jackson carry through with his threat and cut Obama's nuts off or something???

What's next, peak oats?

Posted by: alex on August 4, 2008 at 9:58 PM
*********************************************
Peak promises I'd say. Obama has to be nearing dry hole territory.

"Correct but politically risky" is an understatement. The electorate doesn't understand the oil market, they don't understand peak oil, they don't understand global warming, and the Republicans aren't exactly going to elucidate these issues for them. Gas prices are going to be THE issue this election. If the airwaves are flooded with ads quoting Obama refusing to drill in November, he doesn't have a prayer.

Good point Kevin. You are 100% correct. It is truly amazing. Energy policy is the most important topic facing the US and the world. But the candidates treat this subject this way as a matter of political survival.

Unbelievable. If you really believe Americans are that moronic why would you even bother in politics? Seriously, if we cannot discuss the most obviously important issues sensibly, nothing can possibly save us.

You can't let McCain take all the short-term easy outs as far as energy, you gotta pick your battles. Offshore drilling is a good battle to pick, while tapping into the strategic reserves isn't. Obama doesn't even have to go into exact detail how he'd tap into the reserve, just take it off the table as another thing McCain is beating him over the head with as a short-term solution.

The most important thing is who has the best plan long-term, and that is Obama. If he has to pander a bit on the strategic reserve, it's not a big deal in the longer-term picture, not really that big a capitulation at all, and people are hurting right now so it's not a bad time to ease the pain (i.e. people/voters are in pain because of current gas prices, there's not really any hugely important reason to maximize that pain now rather than mitigate it a bit, especially when it's a political winner and takes it off the table for either guy to have an advantage over).

The pain is still there, people know we have to do something, and though it may sound enticing neither offshore drilling or tapping into the strategic reserve is really going to make that big a difference short or long term.

God forbid Obama's camp gets wind of an impending McCain proposal to nuke Syria. The "me too" rush to the microphone will end up with Damascus glowing in the dark.

While I agree that this sounds like pandering, I'm not at all sure that it is. There are many who believe that at least in the short-to-medium term, as Americans and others find ways to reduce consumption, oil prices will continue to fall. Anyone who thinks this should support tapping the strategic petroleum reserve now: it will accelerate the price drop, and the reserve can be filled up again in a year or two when the prices are lower. Note that this is very different from supporting offshore drilling, which will have *zero* effect in the next few years, and it's also different from the gas tax holiday nonsense, which just transfers more money to the oil producers while having little effect on the price.

I haven't followed Obama's policies closely enough to know if this is a major change in his position, though the LA Times article points out that Congressional Democrats have been promoting this idea for some time. But it may, in fact, be a good idea, that will provide a little temporary relief on gasoline prices as we move toward higher fuel economies, more use of mass transit, and other ways of reducing fuel consumption.

Offshore drilling, on the other hand, does threaten potential and real harm and risk in a number of very important economic and ecological areas outside of the more narrow concern of gas prices and oil reliance, so it should be resisted at all costs and that's really where the line should be drawn, not tapping into the strategic reserve which is really only a phenomenon of election season.

Surely the way to handle all these sorts of issues is to add "When it makes sense" before making a moronic proposal.
eg reporter asks Obama "Would you allow offshore drilling?"
Obama "When it makes sense, I would allow offshore drilling."

Now you have the sort of meaningless answer that everyone can interpret as they wish, but you have defused the issue wrt McCain. (Note the similarity with "I am not against all wars, I am against stupid wars".)

Kevin Drum: I know that underneath the BS Obama has a pretty good energy policy and McCain doesn't. Big deal. That energy policy isn't going to see the light of day unless Obama starts building public support for it.

And unless Obama gets elected.

The fascinating part about all the flip flops is that Obama and presumably his top people all think it can be done without damage to him. He really does have a great level of self confidence in himself and, perhaps, a low level of respect for the smarts of the American voters.

Obama has retreated into a purely defensive posture and he's not doing a very good job of that. McCain's spots are having the intended effect. Obama's team appears content to roll with the punches.

I'm getting that queasy feeling again that Republican messaging, based on focus group rsearch and social marketing, will trump policy and issues-based messaging. And we're going to let them get away with it.

While I agree that this sounds like pandering, I'm not at all sure that it is.

I am not sure if this is really flip flopping either. I need to read Kos, Atrios, and YGlesias. I'll get back to you.

Fucking racist mainstream media really pisses me off.

Offshore drilling, on the other hand, does threaten potential and real harm and risk in a number of very important economic and ecological areas outside of the more narrow concern of gas prices and oil reliance, so it should be resisted at all costs and that's really where the line should be drawn, not tapping into the strategic reserve which is really only a phenomenon of election season.
Posted by: Jimm

If Obama opposes offshore drilling he will suffer at the polls. It is complete common sense to want to spend money stateside and produce as much of our own oil as possible as opposed to sending it to Russians, Saudis, Chavez, thus hurting us twice. It is not an immediate fix, but maybe it is about time people started looking beyond pursuing just immediate fixes.

High prices are forcing behavior changes that are necessary. New energy providers will emerge to take advantage of the markets. Artificially suppressing prices will delay the inevitable.

Obama has supported coal liqueification, co-sponsoring the Coal-to-Liquid Fuel Promotion Act of 2007. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/01/09/AR2007010901503.html

don't misunderestimate his ability to take expedient stands.

Incoming message from the Big Giant Head....

And yes, I know that underneath the BS Obama has a pretty good energy policy and McCain doesn't. Big deal. That energy policy isn't going to see the light of day unless Obama starts building public support for it. So far he isn't even trying.

Big deal? Ay yes, perfect is the enemy of good.

You'd prefer the candidate with the better energy policy to lose because he's not going to let McCain out-pander him 10-1?

Hey, is it too late to re-nominate John "I can't answer even the most basic yes/no question in under 10 minutes of mind-numbing details" Kerry or Hillary "I'll tell you anything you want to hear - and I mean anything and everything" Clinton?

Yes, shame on Obama for trying to win by not keeping his campaign 100% high brow wonk. Shock of shocks, it turns out Obama is (gasp) a... a... politician. Sometimes politicians do what's popular as opposed to what you in your opinion think is right. Stupid democracy.

By all means call Obama out on his shortcomings, but why on earth would you dismiss substance over the superficial? What should matter most is that Obama's Obama's energy plan is better than McCain's by a wide margin, notwithstanding what Obama may or may not say this week or that on any given tactic on reducing energy costs for consumers.

You still write like you have some kind of beef with Obama (it matters less to me that you're critical of him than that your criticisms often seems to sidestep your otherwise logical and emotionally detached analysis).

Yes SJRSM, tell us how you feel about Nuclear Energy, Soylent Green, and in general turning people into batteries? Are you telling us Obama should be for that too?

I suspect that along the coasts where there are oil wells folks understand what offshore drilling will do.

But hardly anyone lives along the Pacific Coast or the Gulf Coast, so, what the hey?

The fascinating part about all the flip flops is that Obama and presumably his top people all think it can be done without damage to him. He really does have a great level of self confidence in himself and, perhaps, a low level of respect for the smarts of the American voters.

When a McCain supporter can manage to string that bit of magic together, the stupid burns like napalm.

This is stupid nitpicking. His speech and his plan were solid.

as far as dipping into the strat reserve, that isnot what he said. He said he is for the strat reserve selling light sweet crude and buying and stockpiling a lesser oil. i.e. flood the market to help drive down prices. If there are market manipulators out there, this would drive out the shorters and lower prices in the short term.

Clinton sold strategic reserves when he was in office and it worked great.

as far as the flipflopping goes - BS. when you are opposed to something then for it, THAT is flip flopping. When you have not come out in support of something and then you come out in support of it, that is DECIDING.
This is BS
go post a picture of a cat.

Obama is right to suggest tapping 10% of the SOR (more than 700 million barrels). This is the best way to change the psychology of the market, ie put the fear of excess supply into the hearts of the speculators and hedgies. The US uses about 20 million barrels a day, so the reserve contains about 35 days of supply if no other sources were available. Since we produce about 9 million barrels a day ourselves, and since Canada (our best friend) is the largest exporter to the US and will not cut supply, the SOR would be enough for many months of supply in the event that OPEC cuts us off. So 70 million barrels is a mere bagetel and of no consequence to our security, but will have a huge impact on bringing oil prices down for an extended period. Obama is dead nuts right on this.

SPR not SOR above.

obama has to quit running on foreign policy and run on the economy.
this was always going to be a close election
the republicans always run negative campaigns
the republicans always play the race card
obama has always been weaker on domestic and economic policy which is why the primary was so close and contested.
if obama does not start saying "jobs" 100 times a day he will lose.

If you're running for President of a nation full of stupid people, you have to pander to the Stupid Vote at least a little.

I have no idea how big the Stupid Vote is, but I bet it's bigger than the Black Vote, the Hispanic Vote, the Youth Vote, or any other Vote pollsters divide the electorate into. There was a glimmer of hope, back when we were fighting the 'gas tax holiday' battle, that the Stupid Vote is not as big as the GOP figures it is. But you never know, in a democracy.

If the American electorate seriously believes that enriching the oil companies is the way to make gas cheaper(!), then neither Obama nor McCain will be able to save this country.

-- TP

The Republicans are running Grandpa Simpson, only with a less coherent world-view, I mean this is a guy so stupid he thinks that opening up coastal drilling is some kind of "energy policy." It's almost as stupid as his belief that slaughtering Iraqis was a good idea.

McCain - murder and irresponsible and not particularly productive drilling, what more could you want in a candidate?

One could go to town, if one had gas for the car, on Kevin's terms:

--pimping,
--switcheroo
--flip flop, flip flop (and later on, for in repetition there is emphasis: "flopping around on energy policy."

Democrat was repeated twice, in case you missed that.

Oh, and pander and craven just in case you didn't get Kevin's invitation to his troll fest.

Oh, and did I mention pimp?

I smell sulfur.

Obama, or any politician has to pander to the "reducing gas prices near term is the ONLY thing" meme, or be voted off the island. It certainly is a damn shame that our electorate falls for pandering and emotional personality BS, but that is the system we have created for prospective leaders to jump through. I don't see this a flip-flopping. We can plausibly claim that the facts on the ground (economic, and resource wise -not just political) have changed. The drilling restrictions never should have been in place in the first place, and reviewing them makes perfect sense, as the value of oil is much higher than we imagined when we put these areas off limits. (Yeah, I believe in cost benefit analysis).

Now from what I have heard (haven't seen the details), its not as bad as the headlines make it out as:

(1) The SPR stuff, is kind of a gimmick, the SPR is part light oil and part heavier grades. His proposal is to tap some of the light grades, and replace it with heavy oil. This probably makes sense, as until more heavy oil refining capacity is built, light crude is in short supply, and the heavy stuff is in short term oversupply. This means we can increase the (world) supply of refineable crude, while obtaining the heavy stuff at a steep discount. So at least with this proposal we end up with no net draining of the reserve (although a change in the mix of oil grades in it), and a slight decrease in the price.

(2) The windfall profits tax/ tax rebate is not a good policy, but it does play into the oil companies are the bad guys, and we are gonna make them pay you some relief meme.

(3) The stuff underneath, such as a major push for plugin hybrids is right on. This is the only realistic way to make progress.

But, we gotta get the politics right. If we don't win the election, our influence on policy will be minimal. I hope we can avoid the flip-flop spin from being too damaging.... But heck, we can charge McCain with flipflops of his own (Iraq, torture, immigration,...), and we must do this. The voters won't respect a candidate who takes insults lying down.

I think Obama's doing the right thing. No need to be rigid about no new drilling. Same with regard to nuclear energy. There may be situations where it makes sense.

Kevin et al -- Please check out this NY Times column from August 1992. Here's a winning strategy. As you've noted, the counterattack (response to Republican attacks) is very important...

August 1992 -- Description of Clinton's 1992 Campaign Tactics While In Progress

Let's play a little game.

Pretend it is Fall of '07 and the first primaries are still a few months away. A large group of Democrats are vying for your vote.

One candidate stands up and states his/her positions: they are for expanding the death penalty to include child rapists; they are against the gun controls laws currently in place in DC; they are for expanding the powers of the president to wiretap -- and while against giving the telcos receiving blanket immunity, don't think it is a very important issue; they are for offshore drilling; and constantly talk about tax cuts.

Honestly, would you vote for this candidate? Is this a candidate that would get you excited? One that you would contribute to, and volunteer?

Seems everyone would prefer to forget this bit of flip-flopping backtrackery:

Statement from Senator Obama’s Office on the FISA Bill
Monday, December 17, 2007
Printable FormatFor Immediate Release
Contact:Michael Ortiz, 202-228-5566

“Senator Obama unequivocally opposes giving retroactive immunity to telecommunications companies and has cosponsored Senator Dodd's efforts to remove that provision from the FISA bill. Granting such immunity undermines the constitutional protections Americans trust the Congress to protect. Senator Obama supports a filibuster of this bill, and strongly urges others to do the same. It's not clear whether he can return for the vote, but under the Senate rules, the side trying to end a filibuster must produce 60 votes to cut off debate. Whether he is present for the vote or not, Senator Obama will not be among those voting to end the filibuster.”
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
It's starting to sink in with the electorate Obama's policy compass is more of a weather vane.
If you won't stick with an emphatic committment to protect a Constitutional amendment which of your other positions have any sanctity?

It's the Strategic Petroleum Reserve. Bush kept on filling it up as prices rose. If tapping into it helps lower prices by increasing global oil supplies, that is a good thing. Europeans have also been building up their oil reserves (AFAIK the European Union didn't have a SPR until 2005 and they started building one as prices rose) and maybe they will be tempted to tap into theirs if it is done in a coordinated move (akin to coordinated monetary response).

Tapping into the SPR during times of acute price gouging (by the OPEC and Russia) makes sense, even if McSame had the same idea before Obama.

The Big Giant Head says that Obama doesn't really mean these things. But if he were to tell us what he would really do, it would sink his chances of being elected, and so he tells us what we want to hear. He's really far smarter and more liberal than he lets on.

The Big Giant Head says this is change we can believe in.

Obama better watch out. I am more than happy to sit on my hands in November and wait until the Democrats finally figure out that I won't vote for Republicans, whether they belong to the Republican or Democratic party.

Shoot, maybe Hillary should contest the votes at the convention. If I wanted to elect an immoral pol who would run over her grandmother for votes, I would have voted for her.

That’s not Obama’s only energy pimping today. In his Detroit speech on hybrids, etc., he whored himself to the formerly Big Three while basically pretending Toyota doesn’t make cars in America, let alone that it has plans to open a Prius plant here in the future.

Good post, Kevin!

Unfortunately, it is a good snapshot of this election. We have two candidates anxious to pander, rather than face and articulate the challenges of the next ten years. This country is in deep trouble. It's a waste of time to apportion blame between congress, Bush, and the American people. We need is a president with both guts and a brain, and neither candidate qualifies.

We are destined to relive the Bush administration again and again until we learn to face reality.

Well this one is clearly an error.

It is fundamentally stupid and illiterate, whereas the offshore drilling is not an irrational nuance to add. Of course more offshore isn't a fundamental answer, but it is also not economically irrational when tied up with other demand management and alternative proposals.

The tapping of your oil bunkering is just plain illiteracy.

This obviously is not something that has not been suggested by others (and by me in another thread), but I think McCain's best move would be to make a one term pledge in his acceptance speech for both him and his vp choice - saying they will not devote one second to politics if the American people honor tham with election as president and vp.

Normal voters would like that. It would relieve concern about age. It would allow people to conclude that Obama could try again in four years. It would allow McCain to assume the much talked about "change" mantel, because he would be bringing the biggest change of all to the presidential process.

I think it probably would be worth about 3 to 5 points in the election and likely ensure McCain's election. Plus, it would be personally smart for McCain because second terms typically are almost nothing but trouble for a president.

The one term pledge also would be a plus if made by Obama, although it is almost inconceivable that he would do it.

... whereas the offshore drilling is not an irrational nuance to add. Of course more offshore isn't a fundamental answer...

But it's useful as a carrot in order to achieve the other initiatives -- eliminating tax breaks for big oil & providing tax credits for research into alternative fuels. This strategic reserve business is just plain ridiculous, though.

I can't wait to see your heads explodes when Obama runs away from any cap and trade scheme for carbon emission and any action plan for global warming or climate change later this fall.

So, Kevin, did you check out any of the last five patently dishonest anti-Obama McCain ads? You should write at least 12 posts on something like that for every one of these yawners.

This is not just bad policy (which the big O admits), it is bad politics.

No, I'm not talking about the base. Voters make their decisions in part (too big a part) based on their perception of the candidate as a whole. Nobody expects a candidate to agree with them on everything. But an open pander "this is something I've opposed a long time, but I'll change my mind even though I still think it is a bad idea because I think changing my mind will be popular" is NOT going to win votes. It looks weak, it looks weak and unprincipled and untrustworthy even to people who support drilling. (And I know BO is saying he'll only agree to this if he get support for some good stuff. But public perception will read it the way I said. And it is not far wrong. The result of Obama's unilateral public surrender, even though conditional, is not going to be a deal, but advancement of the drilling agenda, but not Obama's. And it won't do bubkes to get him elected.)

It's so funny to see Chico here pretending that Obama's some kind of monster. What was Onion Belt McCain's offer on energy policy? Oh, that's right - invade Iraq and murder their citizens and give tax breaks to the corporations with record profits. In other words, term three for Bush.

That sound you hear? That's Republicans scraping the bottom of the barrel with old Onion Belt.

Really, what has Grandpa Simpson done to deserve the highest office in the land? Crashed five planes? Well, I guess he has Obama beat in the wasting taxpayer money department. Helped support a war against people who weren't our enemies and ended up being a prisoner of war there? Well I guess he certainly proved with his vote on Iraq that you can't teach an old dog new tricks. Wait, I know, it's the Keating scandal that gives him his credibility on corruption - he knows exactly how to give in to it.

Hm...if I were a Republican like Chico or Brian I would be embarass...wait, people so stupid as to vote for Bush and McCain aren't smart enough to be embarrassed and I'm not capable of losing the 60 IQ points it would take to become either of those idiots - so nevermind.

Kevin is hitting a very important point. Obama now appears to be chasing polls instead of leading and building a new consensus based on facts.

He needs to get it together and stop letting John McCain lead him around on a string...he is also setting himself up for a counterattack when he rolls out his healthcare plan...

Y'all are killing me here. Who expected anything more from Obama after the primary he ran, when he never took a single strong stance until he was forced to by the activist base, and even then hedged his bets behind the scenes with double deals? Now that we're out of the primary and the influence of the activists is diluted to nothing, Obama gets to be Obama -- the guy who hired a bunch of Tom Daschle's staffers to run his Senate office and campaign, the guy with few qualifications for president besides his ambition.

Is ther anyone left who thinks that, had Obama been in the Senate in 2002 with his eye on the presidency, he would have voted against the Iraq War authorization? Anyone? Buehler? Buehler? Obama is just another politician, a particularly shifty and gutless one who fires off a good speech, but another politician all the same.

It's kind of funny when you think about it: for years the Republicans and their media cheerleaders have derided the Democrats as "standing for nothing," and being willing to "say anything to get elected," even when it wasn't true. Obama comes along -- a guy who does stand for nothing (or stands for anything, to be exact), who will and has said anything and everything as the moment requires, and the media fall in love with him, while Republicans cross over in primaries to vote for him. If the "netroots" had been as smart as they pat themselves on their back for being, they would have smelled a rat a long time ago. Instead that can't seem to get over their surprise every time Obama disappoints, probably because they can't admit to themselves what is obvious by now: they've been had.

Jerry: What are you saying?
Elaine: I'm not saying anything.
Jerry: You're saying something.
Elaine: What could I be saying?
Jerry: Well you're not saying nothing so you must me saying something.
Elaine: If I were saying something, I would have said it.
Jerry: So why don't you say it?
Elaine: I said it.
Jerry: What did you say?
Elaine: Nothing.

Hey come on.... pandering works.

Wish Gore and Kerry did a little more pandering.

You know what the Democrats need? More advice from people stupid enough to vote for Bush and Onion Belt McCain.

Principles without power are like being the eunuch in a harem. You can look, but that's the limit. Frankly, that's not an inspiring option. Obama's still way better than Grandpa Doddery, and ten times better than the Clinton creatures. Quit yer whining, ye milquetoasts and let the man run his campaign.

Kevin is, as usual, being too kind to the media. Yes, Obama is flipping around on energy, although not as much as they say. But so is McCain. If fact, McCain has not only taken up a policy he opposed for most of his career until a few months ago, he's made that policy the entire center of his campaign! But do we see the flip flop unprincipled headlines about McCain? Of course not.

By all means blame this on the media and continue blaming them until they start covering the candidates fairly. Or until Greenpeace serves barbecued dolphin and gives away baby seal mittens at its fundraisers, which will likely happen much sooner.

My understanding was that all Obama did was to come out in support of the bipartisan solution being floated by Kent Conrad. As he stated quite clearly it contains the bad with the good. I don't view this as a major change of policy on his part, more as something that appeals to his desire to "bridge the differences". The rollover on FISA was quite different, a complete change from his previous opposition. People tend to vote their pocketbooks so, yes, gas prices will be a major issue. If Gramps can convince the public that he will lower gas prices then this will be a big boost to his campaign. Never underestimate the gullibility of the low information voter!

Look, I think Obama is just running a weak campaign for all that he has going (or should have) going for him. McCain, with Obama's help, has been able to turn this election into a referrendum on Obama's character. This was easy to do too: Obama's campaign has largely positive, about the "change" and "hope" he'll bring to Washington. However, once McCain puts doubt into voters minds about these things, well, it's over.
And, if Obama does not respond, let alone go on offense, he's toast. It's really that simple. Changing his mind on things when it is politically convenient to do so, such as with FISA and his most recent energy pimping, doesn't help either.

Obama was never going to win by riding a wave of positive character schtick. If his team believed that, especially after the last two presidential elections, they really are fools. After what has happened lately, sometimes I feel Hillary would have made the better candidate. There's no way McCain's attacks would have gone this far without a viscious counter attack.

Kevin, what's wrong with nukes for all?

Nukes are obviously not an answer for the short-term oil spike, but in the longer term they can a) free up natural gas for other uses, including transportation fuel, b) provide the power to run electric trains and plug-in hybrids (and ultimately full-electric cars), and c) allow the gradual shutdown of the worst energy source of all, coal.

Yes, yes, renewables and conservation are supposed to make all of that possible too, but it's not certain what fraction of our energy needs can realistically be supplied by renewables at a reasonable cost.

Frankly, the imperatives to get ourselves off oil and coal are urgent enough that that arbitrarily ruling out nuclear power because it's icky is gambling with the future of our planet.

Why can't "THE ONE" just turn water into oil?

Obama's energy plan is aggressive, balanced, and thoughtful. He's looking at electoral realities with his SPR and offshore oil positions and in his shoes I would also refuse to let McCain tie the high gas prices around my neck.
I think he is correctly pivoting on the energy issue and going on the attack this week. I was pissed off at the flip flop coverage myself, but he's got to hammer the rebate and windfall profit tax points and continue to tie the Albatross around McCain's neck.

I think that Obama's idea is just to blur things enough to dull the talking points for the McCain camp. On drilling, Obama can now say that he still doesn't think that it will work, but he's willing to compromise to get agreement on a plan that will work. He isn't giving anything up, because the Democratic Party is never going to agree to more offshore drilling anyway. But, the talking point is weaker for the McCain camp, because Obama can claim that he is willing to work with the other side, and McCain isn't.

Tapping the Oil reserves may not happen, either, but if it does, gas prices will go down in the short term, and Obama can claim credit for a strategy that produces lower gas prices before the election, and it might help him win. Even if the reserves aren't tapped, Obama can make the claim that he had a plan for immediate relief, as well as an energy policy that will address the problem in the long term.

I think that Obama is trying to triangulate this situation carefully enough to diffuse the Republican talking points, while at the same time not giving up anything substantial. I think this could be pretty smart, because the low information voters that he needs on his side to ensure a victory are not going to make their decisions based on in depth analysis of his policies, just on the impression that he's a leader and that he knows what he's doing. If can come across as positive and assertive enough, this just might work.

Wow, what a surprise. Obama is a pandering politician. I am shocked, shocked, shocked.

A lot of the above posters seem to think this is about issues and the voters really care about the details of the candidates' energy policy. Only the base cares.

Everyone else votes on whether they like the guy -- their perception of his character.

Both candidates can pander, but only McCain shows a knack for character assassination. If Obama doesn't start hitting back hard, and soon, he's toast.

Not just a panderer, but a Kumbaya panderer.

And, the fact that neither Just.Another.Politican.™ nor Schmuck Talk Express™ will talk about Peak Oil is worse.

You know what to do.

Stop enabling Democrats like Obama.

It's called the Green Party.

Yes, because that has worked so well for the last 8 years SG.

If the Green Party really wants to make a difference, they need to stop running hopeless presidential candidates every 4 years and start electing legislators. There have to be a half-dozen House seats out of 435 where Green Party candidates would have a chance to win. Even if they only get a couple seats, they could form a Green caucus within the House and invite Democrats and even the occasional environment-friendly Republican to join.

There are probably also a couple state legislatures where they could get enough seats to form a tie-breaking bloc capable of pushing the Green agenda.

Both of these would have more impact on American politics and policy than running Presidential candidates who act as spoilers when they have any impact at all.

At a time when he should be hammering his own energy policy over and over, he's turning into a spineless wuss, thereby confirming the image of him that the McCain campaign has been trying to sow--weak and feminine. That's why I hate Democratic presidential candidates--they just never fail to collapse and go belly up and submissive when they should be attacking. I swear to God, they LIKE losing.

Even in Massachusetts, McCain's climbing in the polls. How DARE Obama throw this election?

I would love for campaigns to be about real issues and intelligent discussion of policy but it is not and has not been for years. Democrats can continue to try to play by the rules and take the high road but they will continue to lose. I'm tired of losing - the idea of John McCain as our next president is unacceptable. Obama has to do what he has to do to get elected and then we have to do what we have to do to get him to implement sound policy.

What rusty59 said. Both about Obama doing what he has to do, and us doing what we have to do.

Sure hope the Secret Service ain't listening in.

Kevin, I think the word should be "liquefaction" rather than "liquification."

Or rather, it probably is "liquification," because everyone but word freaks says it now, but historically the word has been "liquefaction."

I totally agree it is fine for Obama to do this. If Hillary did it, of course, that would be something else entirely.

Rush Limbaugh is working furiously to mainstream the verb "pimp". I think we ought to discourage its use.

[]D ][ []\/[] []D

Rush is rationalizing his existence.

Comments above concerning the Green Party as an alternative are to the point--Socratic G. is right in that the Greens offer (at least in theory) an alternative to enabling Democratic PanderPols. Taanstaafl's riposte is even more on target: the Greens in the US have valiantly resisted doing anything like organizing to gain office in a serious way. The national candidates last time were actually not bad--the VP contender was in fact pretty impressive--but the tendency to run local cranks and clowns as Greens has ensured that relatively few voters take 'em seriously. Greens here ought to take their cue from the UK Greens, who are serious contenders in local council and parliamentary elections.

taanstafl wrote: "If the Green Party really wants to make a difference, they need to stop running hopeless presidential candidates every 4 years and start electing legislators."

hdw wrote: "Taanstaafl's riposte is even more on target: the Greens in the US have valiantly resisted doing anything like organizing to gain office in a serious way."

I am a registered Green Party voter in Maryland and have been involved with the US Greens since before there was an official "Green Party" in the US. And with all due respect, you guys don't know what you are talking about.

In fact, the main focus of the US Green Party today is municipal, local and state elections. Take a look at the Green Party's list of current Green officeholders on the GP website.

The Green Party nominates presidential and vice presidential candidates primarily as a strategy for organizing and party-building, not with delusions that they can actually win or with the intent to be "spoilers". Those candidates campaign in conjunction with candidates for local and state offices to help draw attention to the local candidates. The national campaign also serves the function of getting at least some attention to the Green Party's progressive agenda in the national mainstream media -- attention which local campaigns would be unlikely to get.

hdw wrote: "... the tendency to run local cranks and clowns as Greens has ensured that relatively few voters take 'em seriously."

I have a suggestion. Why don't you run for local office as a Green? Show 'em how it ought to be done. I'm not being sarcastic. Go for it. Why not?

Here is what Obama said,

"We should sell 70 million barrels of oil from our Strategic Petroleum Reserve for less expensive crude, which in the past has lowered gas prices within two weeks. Over the next five years, we should also lease more of the National Petroleum Reserve in Alaska for oil and gas production."

Source: http://thepage.time.com/prepared-remarks-of-obamas-energy-speech/

It doesn't seem that bad to me to promote a proven idea to curtail short-term gas prices while outlining a long-term plan.

I thought he tied foreign, economic, environmental, and energy policy together into a clear narrative.

I agree with david. It's okay that Obama is doing this because underneath he has a really good energy policy. If Hillary had done it, it would be because she is a pandering bitch.

Oh, and it's okay that McCain is lying in ads, because underneath we know he is an honest, straight talking guy. He's just doing what he needs to do to get elected.

I love how idiot Republicans call Obama's multifaceted plan "pandering," it's like they didn't notice Onion Belt McCain's flip-floppery on offshore drilling nor the fact that McCain has no policies at all. But then, you couldn't really be a Republican if you cared about facts - eight straight years of disastrous idiocy should have taught everyone that.

Kevin: Here you are just wrong.

There is a strong speculative element to current prices, and a threat and occasional release of Strategic Oil Reserves to the market is a way of bloodying the nose of speculators. Ulysses Grant broke the famous Jay Gould, Jim Fisk corner of the gold market by selling US gold reserves into the market. After Soros and others made billions speculating against the British pound and other currencies, Robert Rubin set up a system with other countries to do episodic, unannounced interventions. It doesn't take that many unpredictable interventions to make speculation a bad business. Bush has made NYMEX a cash register for speculators (how many are Arabs and Russians?) by announcing he will NOT bloody their noses.

Policy matters, Kevin. Flip-flop or not, Obama's plan is the right policy.

The real problem with democracy is that it causes politics to interfere with government. The only anecdote is leadership and while Obama displayed some reason for hope early in the campaign, I have long ago lost any hope that he is any less craven than McCain. I do think he has a real chance of snatching defeat from the jaws of victory because he has so repeatedly let down the people he energized. This election, like all recent elections will turn on turn out. McCain will have great difficulty energizing his base, but Obama is doing his best to turn off the very people he drew back to politics. He could very well lose the election if the liberals stay home like they did in 2000 and 2004.

What is this Onion Belt business? Have I been leading a sheltered life again?

God you are a dumbfuck. He has to get elected to have any plan put in action.

Why don't you judge him on that.

He has been talking alternative energy for the past two years. Sorry you are too fuckin stupid to notice.'

Turn off the TV dumbfuck you won't be so stupid.

From the Simpsons:

Grandpa: One way to get rid of them is to tell 'em stories that dont go anywhere. Like the time we went over to shelbyville during the war, I wore an onion on my belt....which was the style at the time...you couldnt get those white ones, you could only get those big yellow ones.................now where was I........oh yeah, the important thing was I was wearing an onion on my nelt, which was the style at the time, you couldnt get those... (trails off)

hm...seem to have a typo at the source - that last line should have a "belt" rather than a "nelt."

Ah, I have a faint memory of that now. Thanks.

Kevin, it seems you've been (hopefully, unintentionally) misreading things lately. Earlier, your confusion of "laughing off" with "laughing at" was strange.

And now, with Obama and off-shore drilling. Please go back and read the speech. Obama makes it very clear that he does not think drilling will do much good, just that he's willing to allow some as part of a compromise with Republicans.

Regardless of what you think of that strategy in terms of policy (and I don't think compromises result in good policy) it is not a flip-flop or pander. It fits exactly with his post-partisan message. I guess you could argue that his post-partisan message is itself one giant pander, but that's a different issue.

Have you been cutting back on coffee?

Holy shit, I've been cutting back on the coffee. I had just finished reading the speech, and then went to this site -- still had the off-shore drilling part stuck in my head.

I'm a bit more inclined to agree about the oil reserves.

(What I said about the Somerby reaction still stands.)

I see. So, there's no such thing as compromise any more, right? Every change is a "flip flop"?

Can mommy or daddy come to the phone?
.

Sen. Obama is working quickly to disappoint his base before the election so they will not be disappointed with him after his inauguration.

"Even in Massachusetts, McCain's climbing in the polls. How DARE Obama throw this election?" - posted by Helena Montana.

Obama was up by 23 points over McCain in Massachusetts in early June. The latest poll very recently released, and which the Boston media is talking about today, is showing him up by 9 points over McCain. McCain has made huge gains among male voters and independent voters in Massachusetts. If McCain is down only by 9 points in August, it could make Massachusetts potentially competitive and that Obama might have to spend resources here in Masschusetts to ensure it is in Democratic column. The couple days before the massive Super Tuesday primary, there was widespread feeling among the Boston media and local punditry that it looked like Obama was going to win Massachusetts. The Kennedy's were energetically supporting him, he had a well attended enthusiastic rally, there were polls showing that it was close and some showing him narrowly leading, and there was something in the air. I won't forget seeing Mike Barnicle with the late Tim Russert declaring he thought Obama would take the State. In the end, it was a very comfortable 10 point win by Senator Clinton.

Alarm bells should be ringing very loudly in the Obama campaign. He has had a terrible two weeks in the media and he is giving an impression of being like a weathervane with his views.

Things don't look good for him this Fall, and I will even venture to say that the Republicans are going to be pleasantly surprised with their results in the House and Senate races.

I'm resigning myself to yet another Democratic loss because of inability to strongly fight back and their incompetence and arrogrance.

Maybe, he should be swallowing his pride, and pick Senator Clinton. This might be his only savior in winning the election.

In the defining moment of his life, McCain was willing to give everything for one thing, and that one thing was his country. Contrast that with Obama, who has told America that he is "a proud citizen of the United States and a fellow citizen of the world." Obama is the talented salesman who seduced one state after another saying "Iowa, this is our moment," "Virginia, this is our moment," "Texas, this is our moment," and then tells Europe, "people of Berlin, people of the world, this is our moment." How many times can Barack Obama sell the same moment to everyone, before he becomes Mel Brooks in "The Producers"? Who is Barack Obama? His campaign, as it reupholsters him before our eyes, says we can never know -- perhaps because Barack Obama does not know himself.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/alex-castellanos/the-molten-core-of-barack_b_116904.html

McCain was willing to give everything that the North Vietnamese asked for. McCain is that rare thing, a proud traitor. McCain sells that POW pride everywhere he goes, producing a Mel Gibson choreograph of passionate hate before our eyes.

What happened to the battery project that McCain was sponsoring? There is a car company (TESLA) that has developed a battery that goes 200 miles on a single charge. They might be in line for the 300 million dollar prize. What is frustrating is that so many alternatives to oil energy already exist but neither candidate seems to know about them. Barak was the candidate of change and now that seems to mean changing his stance more than anything.

Is there some reason why we should care what Onion Belt McCain did back in the 60s? Does that really excuse his warmongering, his inability to formulate an energy policy, and his total lack of any domain specific knowledge?

Really, it's as if Grandpa Simpson is running strictly on his biography. No wonder his ads are about celebrity - it's a preventative strike so no one notices that celebrity is all he's got and he's not even as good at that as Obama.

Did Kevin Drum, or most of the rest of you, even read Obama's speech?

He quite clearly said that most of the supposed flip-flops are comprises he sees as nearly useless at best, and bad in balance (the bad that he would take to get the good).

By leaping to the obvious republican framing of what has happened you, Kevin Drum, are part of exactly what is wrong with the American media and American politics. Nuance is impossible with people like you ignoring it in favor of facile analysis that can fit into a four paragraph blog post and stand up only when one's scrutiny is limited to MSM headlines.

A quality media would report that Obama was quite highly critical of most of the parts of the plan that republicans demand, but evidently decided that the rest of the plan was to important. But even here in fringe media commentary we find the usual "it's yet another switcheroo" "Flip flop, flip flop" drivel.

Replace a half dozen senators with progressives (note you don't have to replace just republicans there) and the compromise necessary to get things passed will tip in our favor, but short of that just what are you expecting?

Bad compromise from the majority is the FISA bill, where the right gets everything it wants and progressives get useless and trivial things. This energy policy, if enacted, would be the opposite. Trivial and useless things for the right, but most of what we want.

Alternatively when hugely popular progressive policy is attached to unpopular right wing policy (eg how the minimum wage was passed) the winner is clearly the right, that isn't what would happen here either.

Read the speech for yourself, don't let the right wing media and its useful idiots spin you.

Kevin: If you don't have the decency to quickly and forcefully delete Will's shameful and slanderous post at 1:11 above, I'm just not sure what to say.

jvxcq sevknfqrg qivdtwj crdva yloagehu lumyvkjg dzlwprmhx

jvxcq sevknfqrg qivdtwj crdva yloagehu lumyvkjg dzlwprmhx

3KHnaZ kvjzzbtixaof, [url=http://bbsunqcvwnqz.com/]bbsunqcvwnqz[/url], [link=http://okssniuarhec.com/]okssniuarhec[/link], http://toxqikchzbub.com/