In the second debate, in reference to Russia, Obama asserted that, "Energy is going to be key in dealing with Russia. If we can reduce our energy consumption, that reduces the amount of petro dollars that they have to make mischief around the world. That will strengthen us and weaken them when it comes to issues like Georgia."

Obama is correct in stating that, "Energy is going to be key in dealing with Russia."  However, the round-about way of dealing with the Russian issue on energy shows Obama's weakness.  Throughout history, the U.S. has tackled adversity head-on.  In clear opposition to U.S. dominance in world markets, Obama wants to weaken our position on energy.  It appears that Obama is under the impression that "conservation of energy" will inhibit Russian aggression.  This stance is relatively naive, which by definition refers to showing unaffected simplicity and lack of guile or worldly experience.  Oil today is trading around $90 a barrel.  If we, meaning the U.S., want to suppress rogue nations, such as Russia, we need to increase world oil supply to significantly lower the price of oil.  It's generally accepted that Russia's oil dollars are being used for aggressive "mischief".  Clearly, Obama would prefer to sacrifice our way of life, our abundant high quality of life, in the U.S. to yield to Russian interests, rather than tap our own U.S. national reserves and become oil independent.

Obama is significantly weak on the issues.  Generally, Obama has a child-like approach to dealing with complex issues.  For someone that graduated from Harvard, Obama iterates some significantly unsophisticated comments and arguments.  To say nicely.

By contrast, McCain knows exactly how to defeat Russian aggression.  Drill for oil, and drill now.  Remove the entanglements of bureaucracy.  Let the oil companies do what they do.  Pump the natural oil resources out of the ground, and give us all a break from the rhetoric.