Well of course they have. And look who is shifting with them:

"My interest is in making sure we've got the kind of comprehensive energy policy that can bring down gas prices," Obama said in an interview with The Palm Beach Post.

"If, in order to get that passed, we have to compromise in terms of a careful, well thought-out drilling strategy that was carefully circumscribed to avoid significant environmental damage - I don't want to be so rigid that we can't get something done," Obama said.

In other words, his opposition isn't rooted in principle, it's just a representation of party dogma. And if adhering to the dogma is going to cost him votes, why then he's not to "rigid" about his supposed beliefs.

"New" politics, eh?

And on a related subject, see if you can follow the logic here - Suddenly Obama is for an energy policy, to include drilling, that can bring gas prices down, but right after that, he talks about a second 'stimulus' package of 50 billion dollars (half in $1,000 checks and half in "infrastructure" repairs) taken from "windfall taxes" on oil companies.

Can anyone see the inherent problem in that plan? Once more for the record - corporations don't pay taxes, people do.

So who will pay those windfall taxes and where is the most likely place that will happen?

Yes - at the pump. And how will they do that? By raising prices there.

Brilliant.

Crossposted at QandO.