not gas tax

  At least for John McSame it makes sense, transfer money from the peoples infrastructure (highway trust fund) to major corporations. For HRC it is simple pandering for low information voters. She has now pushed me over the line where is she is nominated, I will vote for non-of-the-above.

...because I think the Center for American Progress has quite a few ex-Clintonite, including John Podesta, the head of the institute.

...once they reversed it at the end of summer, gas prices would shoot up 20 cents, resultin' in more sticker shock.

So, the effect would just continue.

By what criteria, exactly?  Maybe she's not as fascist as a typical Republican, but that certainly doesn't make her progressive.

Clinton is a right wing Democrat, which can best be described as center-right by global standards.  These people fully support rule by corporations, they just want some small degree of regulation so that the corporations don't blow up the planet and/or kill everyone, including them.  (Whereas the Republicans don't want any constraint, either because they don't care, because they trust corporations, or because they're religious nutcases who want to see the planet blown up.)

The last nail will be if she loses a primary which she was expected to win.

Indiana could be that nail, but I wouldn't count on it.

For the longest time I thought I was the only one who was willing to call those who support corporate-controlled government fascists. It is nice to see I'm not alone.

Until this week, I wasn't sure which dem I would hold my nose and vote for when my state finally holds its primary. I will now vote for Obama.

Hillary and Barack are both cautious, centrist pols

I voted for Obama

But his choice of advisers on environment and energy give me pause

And CTL -- I just close my eyes

"The one thing that differentiates her from Obama has been her far superior eco policy credentials."

Sorry, Dotcommodity, you've been badly fooled.  The examples you gave are minor details.  Hillary Clinton and Barak Obama both support coal and nuclear energy, and neither has said that Americans need to quit driving so much and that vehicles that don't get good gas mileage should be eliminated.  Nor has either of them come out against suburban or big box lifestyles, which both require large amounts of fossil fuels.

You could fit the significant differences between Clinton and Obama on ecological issues in a thimble, if there are in fact any at all.  Obama seems less repugnant to progressive values, but neither will do anywhere near what needs to be done for the natural environment, beginning with ending the private motor vehicle era.  If you want to support someone who actually advocates for the natural environment, you'll have to go outside of the two gangs, er, I mean major parties.

that Hillary can recognize and diss an "elite" when she sees one.  

I know that if I'd graduated from an Ivy-league college, accumulated a fortune worth tens of millions of dollars, enjoyed millions of dollars in donations from special-interest Wall Street firms, and loaned $5 million of my own money to keep alive my my own campaign for president, I'd probably have a finely-honed ability to recognize an "elite" when I saw one, too.

The gas tax holiday is not a solution to the rising gas prices.  This "holiday" is a proposed short-term solution that does not solve any of the underlying problems.  First, the average savings per person is not enough to make any economical difference.  Furthermore, the savings would offer more benefits to the owners of SUV and fuel inefficient cars.  As mentioned in previous responses, the presidential candidates should allow gas prices to rise and use this to push for a major changes.  Whether the answer lies within hydrogen, biofuels or other alternative sources, one thing is for certain, the answer is not oil.  It is apparent that with the proposition of this "holiday" our political leaders do not truly understand the direction our country needs to take.