Even Hillary Supporters Admit Obama Won the Iowa Debate

A Republican Congress and a Republican administration had over six years to do something about border security and did little but watch the problem and businesses that employed illegal immigrants grow. Why blame it on the Democrats?

As for the August 8th debate, I don't know where you get the idea the even the most die-hard Hillary supporters think Obama won that that debate just because he came off somewhat better than he did in previous debates. I know I heard some die-hard Hillary opponents admit that she still sounded and looked more presidential than the other candidates.

As for the Republican candidates, just which one do you think would do a better job of dealing with the immigration problem than Bush has and why do you think that?

I doubt the Clinton die-hards will admit a Hillary defeat. After all, that's why they call them die-hards. I don't have a presidential choice yet, but thanks for your article. Whoever follows Bush, I just hope we can get some things done.

Carol and what did Clinton do for border security? Nothing. The last president that did anything about the illegals was Reagan and he gave them amnesty. The democrats arent any better than the repubs when it comes to this issue. I like Tancredos ideas. And I didnt say Hillary was defeated. Did you read my article?

I think we're going to have to take a look at the bigger picture. The next president is going to have a lot of work cut out for him/her. Illegals is a huge issue right now but in the long run, I would rather have someone that agrees with 10 of my stances rather than one.

Obama may have won the battle,but he has a long way to go towards winning the the war. Hillary's an experienced campaigner,and I believe she will come out ahead over the long haul. Also,while I believe there's enough blame to around in both parties when it comes to illegal immigration,the left wants open borders-and more Democrats. That's something we should never-ever-allow!-Norman

Hillary isn't cold. People just always say that. Saying it a lot doesn't make it so.

They are both dynamite talkers. And that is a good start. Presidents have to talk a lot.

I have never gotten over how I hate how Bush is such a lousy speaker. My poor ears.

What I am wondering is why the media are being so quiet about Ron Paul's win in the Alabama and New Hampshire? I know, I know. Wrong party.

Most polititions are going to tell you what you want to hear. This doesn't mean that they will do what they say they will. Look at the last Governor race in Maryland. O'Mally was running and he said he would stop the big increase that B G and E wanted to do. The state voted for him and we still got hit with a 50 percent increase on the electric bill. All polititions lie and we are gullable because we believe them.

I'm firmly in the O'Bama camp, but I am also impressed with almost all of the Democratic candidates and even a couple of the Republicans (McCain and Giuliani). This might well be coloring my judgment since I've thought OBama has won pretty much every debate so far.

A personal letter from a candidate is a nice touch, but how will she remember you if you didn't meet?

Cheryl actually in my case I have met Hillary. But not when I lived in Iowa when we were in Florida.

Me too mike.

At the recent 25th anniversary conference of the Rocky Mountain Institute, Tom Friedman asked Amory Lovins what he'd like to ask the 2008 presidential candidates. Lovins responded:

"How would you feel about de-subsidizing the entire energy sector so that everything could compete on merit and honest prices?" Amory asked. "Most of the foolish stuff we've got that has gotten us into this mess was bought because we leveraged private-sector money into stupid places it wouldn't have gone otherwise by subsidizing them more than other stuff. Energy policy is not based on rationality. It's based on lobbying and campaign contributions, basically corrupt practices."

https://www.rmi.org/sitepages/pid281.php

Lovins' comments are particularly pertinent to the so-called "nuclear renaissance". The industry is using climate change to try to boost it's own stock. But it cannot exist on its own. That's why manipulative lobbying is happening now to procure taxpayer subsidies to the tune of $50Billion. It's nothing but pork barrel projects for vested interests back home.

I would like to hear all candidates answer Lovins' question.