You know Peg,I just don't see Bush as some evil guy,or Gore as some great liar.I think they're both pretty decent individuals,and would like to judge them on their beliefs and abilities.In my opinion,it's way too late for Nader to have any impact on the election,so he's out of the picture.

I think,for me, it boils down to these decisions-

I like the concept of Campaign Reform,if it can be reasonably applied without being gouged with loop holes.I think Gore is genuine on this,and I think the need for candidates to raise more and more money is going to be catastrophic for government.We should have more public forum and debates,less media manipulation and 60 second spots.I also think Gore has a much better grasp of the crisis confronting the environment than Bush.And I think he owes less of a debt to the multinational drug,energy and chemical corporations.

I think George's pledge to cut taxes and refund them rather than haave the Government decide how they should be used is appealing.When a bill was introduced in Congress to lower the tax burden on small businesses,Clinton denounced it as "favoring the wealthy".I work 50 hours a week,and make less than I did working for a Corporation, and our household income is under 50,000 per year.When the Democrats sneer at reducing my tax penalties and call me rich,they come close to losing the vote of a life-long Democrat. I also like the personal responsibility emphasis of the Republican Party.

But it really comes down to this: which individual has the management skills,the broad view and vision,the common sense,the persuasive power,and the decisiveness to make the best President? Right now,it looks like Gore.That could change.