I say they nail McCain with the compromise, being very clear that the offshore drilling is still not a solution, short term or long term, and that they are only doing it to move things forward. Then, while the oil companies are sitting on that land, like the 68 million acres they are already sitting on and doing nothing with, the Democrats take over in January, and make a new law forcing the oil companies to use the land or lose it, so they end up losing almost all of the excess land anyway, starting with the most environmentally vulnerable. They won't even get a chance to drill.

Part of the problem is that there is a bit of a conundrum in the polling b/c the things the public wants are either inconsistent or else the pollsters ask questions in a vacuum without enough detail.

Greg, I think you are giving the polling too much credit in your second paragraph.

First of all, McCain's plan is nuclear with no waste solution and drilling with fewer environmental safeguards. How does it fare in polls when you add those caveats?

Second, the corporate tax breaks McCain is proposing would disproportionately benefit oil companies. The Center for American Progress rna the #s. That's where the #s in the Obama ads come from. So it's not fair to say he's against all tax breaks for oil companies. McCain also has no way to pay for these tax breaks, just more idiotic tough talk ("I'll show a gazillion billion dollars in savings right here!").

Third, now that McCain has apparently backed away from cap-and-trade, it appears he is going to do nothing to combat global climate change, and his energy plan will actually accelerate greenhouse gas pollution. Since many Americans support action on climate change, shouldn't that be part of the question as well?

On an unrelated issue...

From CBS News poll:
Obama 45, McCain 39, Undecided 13

Dates conducted: July 31-August 5. Error margin: 3 points.

I'll write later about the issue of energy...

McCain uses maddeningly vague terms when answering questions about all his policy positions...and this "all of the above" BS is right up there with the worst. How can his audience, much less the media, accept that as an answer to a question about his energy policy? All the above what? It's not so simple as that...in what order would you institute "all of the above"?; with what emphasis?; specifically, how does "all of the above" work as policy? Are tax breaks for big oil part of "all of the above"? How does "all of the above" promote energy independence?

What claptrap...

In other news, this according to fivethirtyeight.com:

A Democratic partisan in Indiana e-mailed to alert me to the Obama campaign's organizaing efforts in the Hoosier State. Obama presently has 14 field offices open in Indiana, and according to both my source and an article in the Indianapolis Star, has plans to open about a dozen more. The head of Obama's field operations in Indiana is Emily Parcell, who was Obama's political director in the Iowa caucuses.

The McCain campaign, meanwhile, has no offices in Indiana, and doesn't have plans to open any.

Obama knows there are only so many who will vote for him, I think we may see unprecedented voter registration and GOTV by the Obama campaign this year.

One largely unmentioned new project which has now been inserted into Obama's new Energy Plan should directly improve his chances in Montana & North Dakota. Obama's New Plan highlights, as the 1st example of specific oil-fields within the US that hold potential - and for which infrastructure obstacles & shortages will be targeted for removal - is the massive 4 BILLIONS barrle Bakken oilfield in Montana & North Dakota. Byron Dorgan finally got the US Geological Service to release their study - just this April - showing there's 3-4.3 BILLION barrels here, just using existing technology. Most people outside that region don't know about it, but the wells are already going in fast there, producing well & expansion is really only being held up by shortages of rigs & equipment.

Why it's important is that the US EIA estimates the Alaskan ANWR site - for instance - holds 1.9-4.3 billion barrels. So if McCain starts shouting about offshore drilling or Alaska bonanzas, Obama can go to an area where drilling is HUGELY supported, pose with farmers, oil drilling crews, geologists etc., and say - THIS oil can be brought on-stream FASTER & CHEAPER & WITH NO OFFSHORE RISK than Alaska etc.

Wisually, there are actually sites there where wind-farms can be seen on the horizon. So O can show, from one site, multiple parts of his Made-In-America energy plan. And the local support - IF he goes there and highlights it - will be huge. Because their issues don't normally get talked about much by National leaders. And getting onside with farmers & oilfield workers & service industries & local govt there could give him those states. It's the same thing Obama was doing punching up the profile on plug-in hybrids when he spoke in Michigan. Most of the country doesn't know the Chevy Volt plug-in in such a central part to GM's chances for survival. It all sounds "theoretical" to the wider press. But GM has already announced the local production site to be Wayne County, Michigan.

The mainstream media doesn't understand a damn bit about Bakken or the Volt. They like to argue about generalities - offshore yes/no, drive more/less, etc. But - besides his new energy plan opening the way to tie McCain to a whole lotta nasty, he's also got some HUGE state-by-state winners.

Greg Sargent, with all respect, I think the problem is with your reporting, which follows the "horse race" mentality of (1) placing factual and non-factual information on an equal plane; and (2) using "polls" as the final factual arbiter:

Polls show McCain's position of combining offshore drilling with other measures is favored over Obama's combo of energy reform and opposition to most, if not all, drilling.

There is not a single piece of factual analysis in your story. The nut graf here is the simple fact that increasing the areas of the U.S. continental shelf available for oil exploration will not have any effect on gasoline prices at the pump (or in the home furnace) for decades ... if ever.

"But when it comes down to specifics in what he will really support, the only thing that comes through loud and clear is more drilling. And I think that is the big vulnerability on his part."

No. The big "vulnerability" is reporters' refusal to do their job and write a factual and well-researched story on this country's addiction to wasting energy. Why do otherwise intelligent reporters feel it is necessary to jettison their brains once an election day approaches?

Still waiting for TPM, HuffPost et al. to use their much vaunted "reporting staff" and actually, you know, do some reporting. Incestuous C&P and poll quoting ain't it.

The Oilbama campaign really does take pride in being ignorant, juvenile and dishonest. He is becoming incapable of the very thing he was once so famous for -- Nothing. I can actually remember watching him bowl and thinking how refreshingly limp he seemed for a Flip Flopper. Now it makes me wanna puke just to look at him, in almost the same it actually makes me puke to see the Chimp Bush or His Lordship Cheney on TV. Maybe you need at least two degrees of separation from Karl Rove or else you eventually decay into a creepy lying sack of shit. I tell you, Oilbama voting for Dick Cheney's Energy Bill is reason enough to say he is Cheney's bitch.