Greg:

You make an important point, and it's one I've raised before. The difference between Hillary and Obama isn't found in the extent of their engagement with nitty-gritty policy details. It's not that Clinton is substantive and Obama inspirational. It's a difference in style, in presentation.

I think that often gets overlooked. There is really nothing substantive about Hillary's response to her interlocutor here. She's asked a tough question to which there are no good, short-term solutions. She doesn't say that. In fact, she doesn't address the actual question at all. Putting more hybrids on the roads won't reduce gas prices; raising fuel efficiency might do that - she confuses the means here with the ends - but even if more efficient vehicles started rolling off the lines tomorrow, there'd be a long lag while the current fleet is phased out. Similarly, alternative energy isn't going to cut demand for oil for a long, long time to come. And ironically, the most effective means of promoting hybrids and other fuel-efficient vehicles as well as alternative energy is likely to be high oil prices. There's just nothing in this ad that speaks to the short-term concerns of the voter.

But as you point out, it's not about substance, it's about style. If Obama were to cut a 60-second ad responding to the same question, I rather suspect he'd inveigh against the powerful, entrenched Washington interests and oil companies with obscene profits that support the status quo, and promise to bring real change. Working folks anxiously eyeing the prices at the pump are more likely to find Hillary's presentation appealing than Obama's - it gives the illusion of offering practical solutions, even though neither response actually offers a short-term fix.

What irks me is that Obama's rhetoric is generally written about as rhetoric, and Hillary's rhetoric is generally characterized as substance. These are both rhetorical postures. Throwing out a three-point plan for every last thing that ails America isn't really any different than speaking loftily about the power of hope and the need for change. Neither gives us more than a vague guide to the actual proposals that'll be implemented once the politician assumes office.

So yes, Hillary's ad is likely to be reasonably effective. But I find it dissappointing, because she's passing up an opportunity here for substance, in favor of grand rhetorical flourishes being passed off as substance.

Well, yes and no.

Certainly, the markets are pricing in assumptions about future demand into the currently escalating prices. But it's not, for the most part, about American demand. Bear in mind that oil is an international market. The run-up in prices has far, far more to do with persistent double-digit economic growth in China, exploding demand in India, and the general mushrooming of personal automobiles and consumption throughout the developing world. Gas prices are up. They're highly likely to stay significantly higher than they've been in the past. And what Hillary's hinting at, but won't come out and say, is that there's remarkably little that we can do on our own to change that dynamic, so we might as well look for cars that burn less gas and develop other fuels.

As for the relatively small role that assumptions about future American demand play in the pricing models, I think you may be overstating the impact of policy initiatives. After all, if markets responded to promises from our political leadership of alternative energy, prices would've been falling for the past thirty-five years with each shiny new initiative.

I mean flyonthewall, your analysis is perfection.