Hillary's War on Science

[cottonseed]

It was only six months ago that Hillary was attacking George Bush for waging his "war on science". It was only six months ago that Hillary was saying that she would shield science from politics.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/05/us/politics/05clinton.html?_r=2&oref=slogin&oref=slogin

Today, it appears that she has changed her stance on that:

“I’m not going to put in my lot with economists,” she said on ABC’s “This Week” program. A few moments later, she added, “Elite opinion is always on the side of doing things that really disadvantages the vast majority of Americans.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=5809228&mesg_id=5809228

By pushing for this incredibly wrong-headed proposal she is both ignoring and attacking every economist in the scientific community that has rightly come out against it. By branding the opinion of these economists as "elitist" she is in fact waging war on them, on science.

In the NY Times article I'd cited above she did mention her belief in evolution:

“I believe in evolution, and I am shocked at some of the things that people in public life have been saying,” Mrs. Clinton said in the interview.

“I am grateful that I have the ability to look at dinosaur bones and draw my own conclusions,” she added, saying, too, that antibiotic-resistant bacteria is evidence that “evolution is going on as we speak.”

It's unfortunate that when this campaign is over, and we're able to observe the bones of Hillary's failed campaign, we will have concluded, just as Hillary had, that, "evolution is going on as we speak." We will have observed that Hillary Clinton had evolved, ever so slowing, towards a being more like George Bush, than like Democrat.

[DJ13]

1. Hillary Clinton had evolved, ever so slowing, towards a being more like George Bush

I believe thats already starting.

Heres how she looked yesterday in Indiana.....

[cottonseed]

5. Good work, you've found the missing link. nt

[SoCalDem]

2. Of course..because she and Bill are actively courting the Rush Limbaugh crowd

..She's after the lowest common denominator..even though they would NEVER vote for her in Nov.. She only needs to "borrow" them for one day in May :puke:

[Evergreen Emerald]

3. wow...you really now how to twist her meaning

to suit your hate.

She was saying that when the Oil companies get the tax breaks and windfalls no economist comes forward complaining. Indeed she says that for the past eight years, the economists have favored businesses over private citizens and complained only when the businesses are taxed.

Why should we pay for the tax? Why should the oil companies that have huge profits, get the breaks?

I remember a year ago people on DU complaining about the oil company profits and tax breaks while we suffer. And, my guess is that if she opposed a tax break for the citizens over oil companies, you would all shi** all over the place.

[cottonseed]

4. She could come up with not one economist to defend her plan.

She was however, able to dig up a representative from Shell to speak favorablly for it. She's now attacking the opinions of economists as "elitist". That, in my opinion is akin to a "war on science". It's political pandering, everyone with a shred of credibility has deemed it so. That's my view.

[Evergreen Emerald]

6. of course that is your view--any way to twist her statement to

attack her. You will find anyway to twist her meaning to continue your hate. What I don't understand is how you can walk around. The way you are twisting and spinning you must be a pretzel by now.