My question is a local one, but perhaps of broader interest. I live in western Garfield County, Colorado, where we're experiencing an energy boom (lots of oil and gas drilling and processing). One of the places I would prefer not to see developed is the top of the Roan Plateau (see saveroanplateau.org for more info, not that I belong to that group). How would the candidates balance our need for more energy development with the need to protect the environment?

Sent by Jude | 2:11 AM ET | 06-23-2007

Michel, It might be worth pursuing other ways that people are blocked from voting like from criminal charges. Harpers once reported that the US incarcerates more people per capita than any other country. If so, it becomes an easy way to eliminate voters, especially if felony offenses are granted for slight crimes.

Sent by Patrick Connelly | 4:47 AM ET | 06-23-2007

Thanks, all...for the pique-ing!

Sent by Lee Hill with Tell Me More | 6:26 PM ET | 06-23-2007

Hi, I would like to ask about excessive anti-terrorism measures. There is pretty round agreement that the security procedures at airports accomplish nothing. 3 oz. of liquids? How is it helping anyone to have these petty regulations? Why are we taking off our shoes? Why all this window dressing, and yet containers coming into the country off ships remain largely unmonitored?

Will Washington, DC remain a fortress - with concrete barricades everwhere - instead of the beautiful, stately city it once was? Will anything change?

Under the candidate's administration, we will continue to have to put up with these things, or will there be a change from superficial measures to targeted and effective ones?

Sent by Ari | 7:02 PM ET | 06-23-2007

I have a hard time distinguishing the difference between Democrats and Republicans other than the smoke and mirrors Democrats use to appeal to their base why trying to grab some middle of the road Republicans. I have certainly become a more independent voter in the last 10 years, voting Democrat without thinking prior to this. Of course, I am just 31. I feel no connection with any of the candidates. I'm also more and more uninterested in what candidates say during election time because they just say what they think will get them the most votes. Republicans, for the most part, have the most clear cut agenda and and stick to it (with the exception of Mitt Romney it seems). Considering most, if not all, of the presidential candidates are millionaires, how exactly are candidates going to appeal to voters that have not historically supported them or those who are not millionaires?

Sent by Shani | 4:50 PM ET | 06-25-2007

Debate,

Michel,

Our future, and the future of this country, rests in the hands of our children. Unless we invest in their future, every child's future, regardless of their race, their economic standing, their geographic residence, or their parent's political and religious affiliation, we will not be equipped to address any other issue we face as a nation.

That investment begins and ends by stepping up to the costs for that future. We can debate what programs work best, experiment with teaching methods, criticize and point fingers, and debate who best is positioned to meet these responsibilities, but until we are willing to finance this responsibility the rest is simply a distraction, a cover-up.

Today, those of our generation, who had an opportunity to secure for themselves a quality education, a successful career, a higher standard of living, and a comfortable retirement, have left to our next generation a debt that we seem to have no desire to repay. We would rather look to our educational system as a means of addressing our fiscal ills before we would raise our taxes, our means of equitably stepping up to our responsibilities, one cent more.

We would rather see the poor not get an education, not get a decent paying job, not be able to afford medical coverage, not be able to adequately raise their family, not be able to contribute to our country's economic survival, and not be able to take care of themselves when they get older.

We would rather see the middle class strapped with the burden of inflated housing costs, and a student loan the equivalent of a second mortgage. We would rather increase the cost of education to the point that every child that is fortunate enough to have received a decent education when they were young, giving them an opportunity to secure a college degree, will be forced to spend the rest of their lives struggling to pay off that debt. And let us not forget that coupled with this obligation is the cost of their medical care that we have now passed on to them, the cost of our medical care, the need to finance their own retirement, the burden of holding up the poor, and addressing the social burdens that go along with poverty.

Rather than adopting the moral code we profess to live by and stepping up to our responsibility, we rationalize our responsibility away. We claim that increasing our tax rate will weaken our economy. We claim that those that make the most in our society already pay a heavy burden. We claim that increased taxes will drive away business.

Doesn???t pushing more and more of our population into debt weaken our economy? Doesn???t reducing our nation???s level of education weaken our economy? Doesn???t creating a greater riff between those that have and those that do not weaken our economy? Doesn???t taking control of our corporate board rooms and sucking our corporate assets dry with our unprecedented salaries and benefits weaken our economy? Doesn???t taking control of our political system to further reduce our tax liability and strengthen our own personal gain, weaken our economy?

We, as a nation have lost our moral compass. I want to know from our political leadership, how they intend to put us back on our moral track. I want to know how we as a nation intend to support them in that effort.

Sent by Bruce St. Germain | 9:33 AM ET | 06-26-2007

DEBATE

I would like to pose a question regarding low high school graduation rates: Parent involvement in K-12 education has been linked to academic success in various ways including increasing the likelihood that a child will earn 'A's in school and decreasing the likelihood that a child will repeat a grade. Family structure has also been argued to play a role in the likelihood that a child will graduate from high school. Do the candidates believe that parents should be held accountable to their child's education in addition to the schools? If so, what do they plan to do to either encourage parents to get involved with their child's education or compensate when parental support is lacking?

Sent by Deborah Jane Smith | 10:21 AM ET | 06-26-2007

America's First Suburbs are now populated with low-to-middle class Black and Hispanic Americans. We have purchased our little piece of the American Dream. Senator Clinton's findings in the study of America's First Surburbs proved what everyone has said in recent years, we are in serious trouble! I do not know what actions were to assist us based on the findings of this report.
However, the low-to-middle class families are working harder to keep up not to mention pay taxes and child care. I would like to know what will the presidental candidates do to save our schools, invest in our neighborhoods, create jobs and create child care options? What will they do to assist us and keep our neighborhoods out of "blight"?

Sent by Sophia Stewart | 1:41 PM ET | 06-26-2007

Not only are we failing against other countries educationally, we're failing against ourselves, town to town, state to state.

I would like to know what the candidates plan to do to stop the ridiculous way in which we fund our public schools. How is it okay for a neighboring town to be able to offer incredible music programs, engineering and phenominal science courses at their high school, are able to have their kids participate in the myriad of robotics clubs that are available now, and the kids in our town can't due to stagnant resources?

I'm not so much worried about the 'reading and writing' that's required as it's mandatory via state testing and NCLB. I'm am terribly concerned about opportunities I am certain we all had as children 30 years ago that our children do not. We've recently cut our sports department in 1/2 and another town just voted to eliminate sports all together. Does this make ANY sense in this age of child obesity?

I'm not concerned about the students that may need additional academic help, have special needs, or speak another language other than English as their first language. Anything that's state or federally mandated gets funded first. These students will always receive their services.

I am, however, concerned about everyone else. Your generic, run of the mill, student who is getting terribly ripped off through no fault of their own.

Sent by S. Swain | 10:33 PM ET | 06-26-2007

Debate

Michel,

With all the debates currently raging about environmentalism and sources of pollution, I would like to ask a question specifically on Amtrak. There seems to be consensus that greenhouse gases are causing global warming, and that a large source of these gases is from driving low mileage, single-occupied (as in one person inside, not their marital status) vehicles. Yet at the same time there are efforts to reduce or eliminate Amtrak's passenger service. Examples would be:
-Rep. Boozman's amendment to strip Amtrak trains of priority over freight trains (proposed on 6/20, withdrawn 6/22)
-President Bush's recurring proposals of funding far below requested levels (including $0 in 2005).
-Amtrak president David Gunn being fired on 11/9/05 for refusing to pursue financial self-sustainability for the railroad

Therefore, I would like to hear what each candidate proposes to do with Amtrak. Expand, eliminate, more funding by states, or just the status-quo?

It might also be interesting to note that the fastest trains in North America are the Acela Service at 150mph for very short stretches in New England. This is considered woefully slow by international standards.

Sent by Steven Kolarz | 12:20 PM ET | 06-27-2007

Question. If Senator Clinton or Barack wins the Presidency it will be a historical event in American History with either the first African American or female president. Some voters who would support Clinton or Barack in peace time may not want either candidate to inherit the mess in Iraq and decide to vote for another candidate. What would either candidate say to those voters? I ask the question after listening to a local DC radio station in which some of the callers said they would NOT vote for Barack because they did not want the first African American President to inherit so many problems created by the current administration like the Iraq war. Whoever wins the Presidency will not be setup by the current administration for a successful Presidency.

Sent by V. Thompson | 4:00 PM ET | 06-27-2007

For the hardworking immigrants that live in the U.S. that dream of becomeing U.S. citizens will you establish a reformation that will grant them that wish,but only to the ones that have come for apportunity not to commit crimes and doesn't take 15-20 years to have that wish granted?

Sent by Jose | 1:50 PM ET | 11-12-2007