Ok, this is the way I see it.

You have two choices. Whether you like it or not. In order to win, a candidate must have the majority of one of the parties, and also most of the swing vote. Nader can't do it. I promise. So it's Bush or Gore.

If Bush is elected, he'll know full well that it wasn't the environmentally conscious voters who elected him. He will know that he doesn't need their votes in order to get re-elected. So he won't feel in the least beholden, or accountable to people who vote on environmental issues.

Gore, on the other hand will know that he needs the environmental constituency in order to get re-elected. He may not change things as fast as we wish, but he will move things in the right direction, as opposed to Bush, who I'm quite confident will move things in the wrong direction.

The problem with wanting change to happen quickly is that you get a backlash. That's why the environmental movement of the 70s became such a joke. A lot of politicians played on people's fears about losing their jobs in order to justify environmentally bad decisions.

I know many people think that Clinton has been a bad president, but I have seen real change for the better, and without a backlash. He has worked very hard to move us in the right direction without creating fears about the economy and jobs. I think that's what we want.

Respectfully, Carol