I'll disagree with your disagreement, although not with your general premise.  Short term, the next 20 years or so, I don't think we have any choice but to increase domestic drilling options.  This would/should include some of Alaska, coastal California, North Dakota, and some of coastal Florida. 

Long term, investment in alternative energy is a good idea.  I wanted to post a link to an article I read a few months ago, but I can't find the link right now.  Basically, some experts in the field were foreseeing a broad shift in energy sources but with truly alternative energies like hydrogen not being fully ready for use until 30-50 years from now.  The key will be bridging that gap without incurring too many problems. 

I realize you feel that progress will be made more quickly if the oil option is less available.  But what if that's not possible?  It does seem clear to me that we could use some government action to drastically increase fuel efficiency and home energy efficiency.  No question that the Democrats are more likely to push such legislation so I'll chalk up one point in the Obama column on that one.

Also remember that above $100/barrel, other sources of petroleum become more economically advantaged, as does coal-to-liquid technology.  The US is well-stocked with these resources, and several oil majors have technologies on the shelf, waiting for an economically advantaged climate.  The thing is that any conventional analysis of oil price in a supply/demand context does not warrant the current high oil prices.  These are driven significantly by spot prices, speculative futures dealers, and instability caused by Middle East turbulence.  Most of the oil majors are predicting a dip in oil prices within the next few years.  It may not be until the NEXT price run-up that the alternatives really start to gain permanent traction.  The US would be well-advised to get prepared this time.