When Senator Barack Obama decided to vote for the controversial wiretap immunity bill, I frowned and moved on. From a political standpoint, letting the phone companies off the hook made sense. We have bigger problems. When the Senator effectively endorsed the Supreme Court's now-controversial 5-4 decision vis-à-vis gun rights, I felt a little less certain, though remained unfazed. It was, once again, a politically savvy move.

But this week, out of nowhere, Senator Obama decided to espouse two brand new, disastrously dumb ideas. First, the Senator declared he hoped to use a new tax on oil companies' windfall profits to put yet another stimulus check in the hands of "average" Americans. Second, he proposed we augment the nation's supply of oil by releasing fuel from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve.

To the first proposal, I see no reason the oil companies should face a larger tax burden than they already do simply because they happen to provide something consumers want. The price of other equally — if not more — essential commodities, such as wheat and corn, has also climbed quite steeply in the last 12 months due to high demand. Yet, I doubt even the most dyed-in-the-wool socialist would argue we should tax farmers' boosted revenue at a steeper rate to provide families with discount vouchers for bread.

For obvious reasons, people want to blame Wall Street speculators or big oil, however, they should really blame themselves. Unlike the oil crisis of the 1970's, this year's oil crisis is a story of supply and demand. People in the United States keep buying bigger cars, bigger homes and bigger burgers, just as people in the developing world abandon their bicycles for Buicks.

I dislike the Senator's second proposal precisely because it alters the supply-demand equation in a way that lowers prices at the pump. If anything, in the wake of falling oil prices, the Senator should have proposed the United States phase in a new $2-a-gallon gasoline tax to keep prices high and give consumers an incentive to use less petrol and make the move to alternatives. As Tom Friedman so sagely put it, "When a person is addicted to crack cocaine, his problem is not that the price of crack is going up. His problem is what that crack addiction is doing to his whole body. The cure is not cheaper crack, which would only perpetuate the addiction and all the problems it is creating. The cure is to break the addiction. Ditto for us."

Back when the Democratic primary still grabbed headlines, I threw myself into the Obama camp for one reason. I want a leader who will lead: someone who, when the situation merits it, will adopt an unpopular position, in spite of the political cost. Neither the wiretap immunity nor the Supreme Court decision merited the political cost of pursuing the right path with unwavering dedication.

America's addiction to fossil fuels, however, does merit that kind of political sacrifice and leadership. While I will not cast my vote for Senator McCain come November — his scorecard on leadership, frankness and our petroleum problem make Obama look like a straight-A student — I would feel much less uncomfortable putting Senator Obama in the Oval Office if I knew he took our energy problems more seriously.