Why does polling say what you are claiming is not true?

Yup.  Score another victory for the ignorant in this country.  Another politician pandering to the ignorant and poor masses - just what the country needs.

Another example of how Hillary and McCain are the same.

Bush is going to veto any windfall profits tax and HRC knows this, so her plan is not going to be paid for even if it did go through, which it won't. It's a shame people are buying into it

And truly you know it's not $.18 a gallon passed on to consumers? Right?

If not, I'll have to trust some other source for whether its "cleaning Obama's clock." That also requires some research.

But even IF she is, even IF it's a smart move, politically, in dismissing not just some of the experts, but ALL OF THE EXPERTS (not one has come forward in agreement, as far as I know -- and Politico has confirmed) disagree.

Aren't there some things more important than "popular?" Such as "Right?"

In fact, I don't expect a candidate to go for "right" everytime. Politics is necessary. But when the supposedly smart politics is WRONG -- then crowing about its success makes as much sense as a Freeper saying Bush was right to go into Iraq for WMDs, even though none were found, because the country BELIEVED some might be found.

And that, at least, had expert disagreement at the time. This doesn't.

I mean, there's a reason McCain supports this. He's a republican, and they run on a national platform of WRONG.

Hillary should know better. In fact, she does. That she and her surrogates continue to push this reflects poorly on them and horribly on her.

Then why is she bashing them? Did you hear Menendez today?

If Gas Tax "Holiday" supporters may think this diary isn't necessary, won't do anything to help anyone, and is just gunning for Rec votes...  then I guess they support this diary?

Seriously though. Ignoring every expert is Bush's domain. Any democrat who argues for bad policy because it MIGHT equal votes (and WONT equal a solution) DID NOT learn the lesson of the last 8 years.

How can we trust any of her "energy plan" if snobby economists are ignored.

But that's for the insults. It's got to hurt to realize your candidate is as removed from the reality-based community as Bush.

Hurt a lot, I'd imagine.

Ah, yes. The Soft Science argument.

You know, when supporting your candidate requires you to diss entire fields of discipline and their centuries of peer reviewed research, you might just be a little too engaged in the personality over the policy.

If she's so bullish on science (heck, let's just call it "academically credentialled experts in the field" if this sites many so-called hard scientists demand (and don't include biology in that list!), then why disparage those experts? How often are they of one mind anyway?

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20080430/ts_n m/usa_politics_gastax_economists_dc

Economists said that since refineries cannot increase their supply of gasoline in the space of a few summer months, lower prices will just boost demand and the benefits will flow to oil companies, not consumers.

"You are just going to push up the price of gas by almost the size of the tax cut," said Eric Toder, a senior fellow at the Urban-Brookings Tax Policy Center in Washington.

Economists also saw it is a poor way of getting money to the households that need it most and warned that it might end up in the cash tills of the oil companies.

"If you want to provide households tax relief, a direct rebate ... is more effective. Not all of the tax relief from a gas tax holiday will be passed on to consumers. Some will likely be kept by refiners," Mankiw said in an e-mail response.

I'm not going to put my lot in with economists," Clinton told George Stephanopolous on ABC's `This Week' after he asked her to name a single economist supporting her plan.

SHE CANT PROVIDE ONE EXPERT, but she can air a lot of commercials.

If this isn't the Bush model against Global Warming, show me otherwise.

And if she's committed to all this "scientific" progress, why disparage experts? Either her policy paper, or her political speeches don't match. Pick one, and feel embarrassed about the other.

The "Real Americans" line is based upon the dismissal of the experts Clinton supporters keep pushing.

And sure, maybe it's a minor, temporary thing, that does little for anybody. So, what's the point? It'll put the government that much more in debt, help the oil companies that much more, and do the opposite of what we should be doing as a country -- providing solutions to discourage our dependence on oil. Not encourage it.

It's all around bad. In lots of scientific disciplines.

That was until she saw an advantage to herself by becoming anti-science

She also says she's happy to ignore economists. As a future scientist, would you like to see a concensus opinion by you and all your peers dismissed out of hand by a politician looking to score points? A future president? A sitting president?

And Bill was right to do it!

I'm sure he never said anything about no "casting his lot" with scientific experts.