I usually think the Obama team is pretty savvy when it comes to winning policy debates and framing their arguments, but they seem to be missing an obvious opportunity when it comes to the "to drill or not to drill" question. McCain is making his short term case for offshore drilling based on largely on oil speculation. And he's right that today's high oil prices have little to do with current supply and demand and are being driven upward by commodities traders investing in oil futures based on predicted supply and demand. If we make plans to increase future supply, McCain argues, speculation will decrease.

And I think there's an opening here for Obama to win the argument on McCain's terms. Speculation is based on both supply and demand, yet Republicans are only focusing on the supply side (naturally). But we've seen very recently that a drop in demand can deter speculation and send prices downward. So why hasn't Obama made the case that decreasing demand (by investing in alternative energies and, yes, inflating tire pressure) is just as effective as increasing supply when opposing offshore drilling? It seems that he could essentially argue that his plan will provide the same short term benefits without the longterm costs.

My understanding of economics is pretty limited, so I may be completely off the mark here. Is there any reason the supply-side argument makes more sense?