As far as tone deafness, though, it would be a lot smarter to emphasise the alternatives to offshore drilling rather than to just mention the problems with the drilling.  Even if she doesn't want to explain all the ins and outs of solar and wind power, she has a large paid staff--how hard can it be to get them to research this and simply give her a few solidly grounded talking points and direct people to the appropriate issue of Scientific American?    So what if people never read it?  It gives you something positive --and accurate -- to say, it gives you a credible source for your something positive to say for those people who do check, it helps her side (at least I hope this is her side) frame the debate on its terms, and it helps pave the way for a real long term alternative.  

Electing the Congressperson from San Francisco speaker has had an effect, but not the one that many anticipated.  Coming into it, there was all this talk about how having the SF rep be speaker would make the House shift way to the left.  But something quite different happened.  Because of the reputation of SF, Pelosi has the ability to define what the left means.  So, if she wants the FISA capitulation bill to pass, all she has to do is support it and then say "Hey, I'm the rep from liberal SF, so if I'm supporting it, it must be sufficiently left-wing."  And the media can say, "Hey, Nanci Pelosi, from liberal SF, thinks it's ok, so anyone who doesn't must be some crazy socialist radical who's even more leftist than liberal SF."  

1. The offshore  ban on drilling bans drilling in the first 50 miles offshore.  If old companies have offshore leases, they are beyond the 50-mile limit. (though I have not heard of any)

2. No drilling within 50 miles of shore per (1)

3. It's more profitable to sign production agreements with Mid East countries.  This is nothing more than a smoke screen, IMO.

4. The solution is to use more renewable sources.  That means less money for big oil, they will never support this.

LINK