Matt Stoller is right about this. Obama's willingness to compromise on drilling is not a reversal in the way, say, his vote on FISA was. Rather, it's a simple statement of is political bottom lines: Obama might oppose drilling, but that opposition is secondary to the need to revamp the nation's energy policy. His statement was then a simple articulation of priorities: If drilling is the sweetener need for a bill that would have "85 percent of new vehicles on the road run on nonpetroleum-based fuels within 20 years," then he's willing to make that compromise. The point of the liberal position on energy is that fossil fuel dependency is the problem. The point of drilling is that we make more fossil fuels available. That's why most folks oppose the deal: Because it moves us in the wrong direction. If it's instead part of a compromise that reduces total use of fossil fuels but slightly shuffles where it is that we pump the necessary crude, most liberals would consider that a win.
