I'm not capable of in-depth analysis like some of you veterans here on TPMc but here are some thoughts-on the "crisis".

One of the key features of a good leader is the willingness to sacrifice one's self for the good of the team/group.  Forget the ability to inspire others for the moment because you could essentially argue an advantage for either Obama and Clinton on this issue. However, with respect to self-preservation vs group-preservation, the recent gas economic meta-debate has been extremely revealing.  Consider the following 2 points:
<ol><li>
It is essentially an estabilished fact that the current gas proposal embraced by both McCain and Hillary Clinton is bad for the U.S. from a strategic point of view and essentially counter-productive in the short-term.  Economists from all stripes/parties/affiliations agree that this is a BAD idea.  It is bad for YOU and it is bad for ME.  It's a bad idea.</li>

<li>2) In order for the average citizen to know that this is a bad idea, they would require to do some research or a little more than cursory reading to see the facts in black and white (even the MSM Papers like WaPo and the NY Times).  Most people will not research this plan and will conceviably and most certainly come away with the idea that "Gas prices are high.  McCain and Hillary want me to save at the pump. What wonderful people!"  Changing this perception requires providing voters with information and the average voter is not as informed as my esteemed colleagues on TPM regarldess of who you support (understatement).</li>
</ol>

Why McCain proposed this inane plan is a post on its own... perhaps to take on his perceived and verifiable weakness on matters of the economy... or something else(senility? bravado?). This leaves the current Democratic presidential candidates to make a choice between:

<ol><li>
a) Supporting bad policy for their own political interest.  This will most likely be beneficial in the short-term in the form of votes from low-information voters.  However, it comes at the expense setting progressive energy policy backwards and filling the coffers of oil executives and share-holders.
</li>

<li>b) Rejecting this bad policy in spite of the political "suicide" this decision may cause, especially considering the immediate stakes of determining a nominee.  The short-term benefits from a voter standpoint would require enormous resources ($$$) to educate the electorate but essentially result in less votes in upcoming contests. Only well-informed voters will know that you were right.
</li>

<strong>Senator Clinton chose "a)".  Senator Obama chose "b)" </strong>

To add insult to injury, Senator Clinton has called on congress to declare there allegiance via their support or rejection of her proposal.  If the last 7.5 years have taught us anything, it has taugh us this: It is extremely dangerous to have a person in a leadership position who, in the face of the "wrongness" of their decision chooses to disadvantage the citizens of this country for their own political gain.

Senator Obama is showing real leadership.  In the face of this gas "crisis" and the current onslaught on his campaign, he has chosen the hard route becasue it will be a better decision for you.  I'm being presumptious in saying this but he is not thinking about North Carolina and Indiana solely... He's thingking about the United States of America (including Guam which he won by the way)... And this is real leadership.

What good is being a fighter when you're fighting only for victory in the next political battle?
What good is experience when this experience teaches you to triangulate your way to YOUR solution instead of the BEST solution?
A good leader chooses the best way in spite of how difficult the decision.

This is the difference between a Good President and a Great President.