I dunno, it's a tad boring but clear and forceful about some key policy differences. And if McCain is gaining traction, then how can Obama fail to highlight who's really, truly benefitting from high prices at the pump?

I'd like to see Obama rally a bit and play some offense against McCain. I worry that he's not really prepared for what's coming at him. With their hardball politics, the Clintons offered him a gift but I don't see evidence he's learned the lessons of a hard-fought primary. Depressing.

So if the offshore drilling issue is hurting them, then I suppose the appropriate course of action is to do as the campaign did and support offshore drilling.

It really doesn't matter to me whether Obama's position is a bit more nuanced than that considering that the story all weekend was on Obama's U-turn.

There are certain things that I can accept, but this just isn't one of them. Opening up offshore drilling will not reduce the price of gas. Anyone, including Obama, who says this is going to get a big middle finger from yours truly.

Opening up offshore drilling will not reduce the price of gas. Anyone, including Obama, who says this is going to get a big middle finger from yours truly.

It is certainly true that offshore drilling won't reduce the price of gas. But Obama hasn't said any such thing. His position isn't "support" for offshore drilling, nuanced or not; it's that it might be an acceptable price to pay for the cooperation of Republicans in getting long-term alternative energy options funded. Reasonable people might argue that it's too high a price, but I don't like the simplicity of the "flip-flop" trope, which doesn't make a distinction between changing your position and stating areas in which you might be willing to compromise in order to achieve something more important.

Yeah, I agree with the professor. I was outraged when I read the AP article that was so misleadingly titled. Obama didn't flip flop, he decided it may be worth it to let the Republicans have their stupid idea so he could have his good idea. I don't remember seeing anybody report that Obama thought offshore drilling was in any way a good idea. I guess "shifts" in a way gets that idea across, but it seemed misleading.

professordarkheart—

Your interpretation of Obama's position as a compromise troubles me. Consider why Republicans are pushing offshore oil: 1) try to win in November, 2) get more contributions from oil companies, 3) pressure Obama and get him to (arguably) flip, 4) perpetuate the maddening status quo of inaction toward global climate crisis. Any other reasons? I don't see anything in there that indicates they'd be willing to compromise to "achieve something important." Actually, quite the opposite.

Republicans don't play to govern, they play to win. Democrats who try to enter into what they view as reasonable negotiations will continue to lose.

professordarkheart, there is no point to indicating what you're willing to compromise on before negotiations have even begun. That's called a pre-emptive surrender.

Look, I don't think Obama is wrong, exactly, but I think he's making a mistake-- people vote for the warrior they feel is going to fight for their interests and fight for his own beliefs. If, in the end, some compromises are made behind closed doors, that's fine, but signalling what you're willing to give up ahead of time is no different than stamping "Loser" on your forehead. Republican politicians should have a palpable fear that they could lose everything if they don't bow to Obama's demands and at least hope to get something in return. What Obama's done is take away any fear they Republicans might have about the consequences of opposing Obama.

Tyro— You say smart things and I bet you'd even look great in a Rachel Maddow outfit.

I think this ad is terrific. I hope Obama's folks play it in every battleground state. The messaging is perfect - McCain supports big oil and its drilling plan because he is in their pocket. He wants to cut taxes for big oil, while doing nothing for consumers. The picture with Bush is great.

It ain't flashy, but the message is powerful. Since the commenters are all upset by Obama's willingness to compromise on energy policy, I would suggest that his saying he will do whatever it takes to bring down energy prices sends a strong signal to hard pressed Americans.

He will win this issue just like he did the gas-tax rebate crap. McCain doesn't even mention that after Obama blew Hillary apart on it in the primary.

I liked the ad - not sure I'm in favor of a windfall profit tax, but it does point out where McCain is coming from and whose interests he really represents.

I'd like to see an ad that points out if we do any offshore drilling, it won't affect the price of gas for years (and then by not that much).

I don't see anything in there that indicates they'd be willing to compromise to "achieve something important."

This misses the context of Obama's statement (as did much of the reporting--why is context always the first thing to go?). He made it specifically in response to the "Group of 10" compromise negotiated between Senate Republicans and Democrats, in which lifting the offshore drilling ban was virtually the only thing offered to Republicans, and it came with a high level of state control over their coastlines, strict environmental protections, and, more importantly, a package including the repeal of tax cuts on oil companies, the offer of tax cuts to renewable energy providers, and funding for research into alternative energy and fuel efficiency. So he was not conceding the issue, as Tyro writes, "before negotiations have even begun"; he was commenting on a proposal that was the final result of extensive negotiations. Original reporting here.

This is really different from coming out of the blue and saying "Hey, maybe drilling isn't such a bad idea"; Obama's been very clear in every discussion of the issue that he doesn't think it's a solution to anything other than, perhaps, Republican obstructionism. And it's exactly the kind of difference that the inane trope of the "flip-flopper" obscures.

2) get more contributions from oil companies

Oil companies cannot contribute to political campaigns. Period.
Obama has himself taken hundreds of thousands of dollars from oil and gas company employees (granted, less than McCain) and has oil company men working as bundlers for him. (factcheck.org)

If the gas-tax rebate was crap because the cost would get passed along to consumers, imagine the effect of the windfall profit tax. It's a gimmick by another name.

I dunno. To the extent that McCain may be getting some traction with offshore drilling (and Obama's "inaction"), Obama needs to hit back on McCain's inaction over the last 20 years in Congress.

I'm a believer that you need to attack your opponent's strengths. McCain is running on his experience. OK, so fine. We're in an energy crisis now. What can McCain point to as *anything* he's done in the last 20 years that may have avoided this problem?

I think the meme Obama needs to hit here is that we need leadership that doesn't simply react to problems when they emerge, but has the foresight to head them off before they arise. Doing so here has the twofold advantage of a) hitting McCain on energy, and b) pushing back on the "experience" argument.

professordarkheart— Thank you for the additional context and information.

If the gas-tax rebate was crap because the cost would get passed along to consumers,

What? As I understand it, the gas-tax rebate was crap because, given inelastic supply, the savings wouldn't get passed along to consumers. (The second paragraph here gives a nice explanation.)

By that logic, a windfall profits tax would be fine, because the costs wouldn't get passed along to consumers. The tax doesn't change the market-clearing price.

More linkage to Dubya. If the election is about him, we win a landslide. Say it with me now, "John McSame is George Bush's third term..."

This is pretty weak "negative" advertising. Strike first, strike hard, no mercy sir!

What? As I understand it, the gas-tax rebate was crap because, given inelastic supply, the savings wouldn't get passed along to consumers.

You are right that I mistyped when I said cost rather than savings.

But why would oil companies be willing to pay the windfall profits tax without passing that cost onto consumers? Given that we've shown a certain "willingness" to pay higher gas prices.
Especially if Obama puts money in our pocket with his proposed rebate to pay for that energy.

sorry, 1:08 is from me

Only ignorant Americans support off-shore drilling and the Dems should be correcting this misinfo. Instead, Obama embraces the ignorance and lets the GOP dictate the oil company desires. He needs to say, we had an oil man in charge and this is what we get. No more!

Obama is blowing this thing. But then, thank the crazed netroots for forcing him on us. Clinton would be stomping McCain and y'all know it.

That's a pretty cheesy voice-over.

Does voting for Barack Obama come ....with club sauce?

If you want more progressive taxes or higher taxes do it the correct way. The windfall profit tax is a stupid gimmick. (not everyone who owns exon stock is rich.)

why would oil companies be willing to pay the windfall profits tax without passing that cost onto consumers?

Actually, thinking it over, you have a point here. If oil companies can't increase supply any, then they'll have no incentive to cut prices even if we cut taxes, which is why the gas tax holiday wouldn't work. But if they can decrease supply some, then if taxes on them go up they have something of an incentive to increase the price and sell less gas.

As I understand it (I'm not an economist, and I just spent a while messing with numbers to no useful effect), it's very unlikely that the whole cost would be passed along; if the oil companies could charge us that sort of price without losing customers, they'd do it already. And whether any of it gets passed along might depend on the exact supply and demand.

I also think that it would be desirable for prices at the pump to go up and for the government to put money in our pocket, because we really should be using less gas and putting money in our pocket would cushion the blow. But that's another story.

I also think that it would be desirable for prices at the pump to go up and for the government to put money in our pocket, because we really should be using less gas and putting money in our pocket would cushion the blow

It is indeed another story, mostly because the government doesn't have its own money to put in our pocket.
If it is desirable for the gas prices to go up, let them go up. I don't understand the thought behind wanting them to go up (because we should be using less) and simultaneously wanting to protect people from the prices going up.

Because prices going up is bad for people, especially poor people. But if gas prices go up $1 a gallon, the government captures the extra $146 billion or so (I may be off a decimal place or two), and it then gives that money back to people, especially poor people... then consumption will stay almost as low (gas still costs $5) but poor people will have more money. The richer people who use most of the gas will have less money, to be sure, but they can afford it better.

It's this word 'extra' I find interesting. What makes it 'extra'- is it because it is an unpopular industry making the money?
Dark Knight is making a lot of money at the box office. Maybe poor people should get a cut of that, too.

To get what you seem to want to achieve, why can't the government just add additional taxes to the cost of gasoline, rather than pass an additional tax on an industry they've singled out as being too prosperous right now?

why can't the government just add additional taxes to the cost of gasoline

Great idea! And if a windfall profits tax on the oil industry is more politically palatable and has the same effect (because the price is passed along), also great.

It's not just that the oil industry is prosperous, it's that their product has significant negative externality; if we didn't need to cut gas consumption on independent grounds I wouldn't think this was a good idea. That's what distinguishes it from The Dark Knight. So a proposal that reduces consumption by driving up the price while gaining the government tax revenues which it redistributes to the poor is a good proposal both by reducing consumption and by helping the poor. (Contra Floccina, most oil stock like most other stock is owned by rich people.) Of course, we'd actually need to make the government redistribute it to the poor; this would be a bad idea if it were used to finance McCain's extension of Bush's tax cuts for the rich.

Unsurprisingly this Obama proposal is probably the worst possible thing you could do. Let's see. We'll tax the suppliers (thus lowering supply) and subsidize the consumers (and increase demand!).

Yeah, that will lower gas prices. Right.