What about Gravel, Nader, McKinney? They're all running, and they all have better environmental policies than the top 3.

Mike Gravel mass donation day April 22nd, fundraising week tax day to Earth day.

www.gravel2008.us/donate_now

Looking from the outside it looks maybe too simple. Obama.

"What about Gravel, Nader, McKinney?"

What about them? None of them have any chance of winning and a vote for any of them can only serve as a vote for the candidate that holds the most opposite views of his/her views (i.e those that voted for Nader in Florida 2000 handing the state, and therefore the Presidency, to W).

McCain would only be a slight step up from the current status quo. He's proved spineless standing up to the far right and won't commit to mandatory greenhouse gas reductions. He also didn't attend several key environmental votes, including the vote on the energy bill where he could have been the 60th vote and provided cloture so that solar and wind tax incentives and 25% Renewable electricity generation profile didn't have to be abandoned. He didn't vote just so he couldn't be labeled too "liberal" by his Republican opponents.

Clinton has taken LOTS of money from lots of the big businesses that would love to see the EPA just disappear. She'd be head and shoulders above McCain, but Obama would be the best. Obama has staked his entire campaign, and Presidency if he gets that far, on change and changing Washington. The appointment of some competent, passionate people to lead high level executive departments like the EPA would most likely be a large part of that change. Additionally, he's been calling for a mandatory cap and trade system since he began campaigning. Now only if he'd shut up about coal.

I agree with Obama. What little he's said regarding the environment is enough for me to lean that direction. Hillary is too healthcare-focused (not to know healthcare but at times it feels like she's got tunnel vision....shouldn't the state of our environment factor into our healthcare?) and McCain's policy on Women's Rights leads me to believe he cares very little for what nurtures him.

I don't think it really matters which candidate we cote for, since all of them are bought up by the corporate elite and run their errands.

If we want a greener world, we need a society that's not based on people's materialistic needs, which America currently is.

The only way we will ever fight the problem with our environment is to equip the people with proper knowledge on how to live differently in balance with nature. The second factor is to get rid of corporate wastes. Corporations are taking over and they are the leaders of global warming and other problems within our society.

I worked two years at a Natural Market and half a year at a corporate gas station. Corporations make buildings that can supply the demand of a growing population, therefore too much is grown, produced, and wasted. These large facilities are usually set up outside of a city where the wild was never tamed and a large street (highway) must be built to accommodate the large amount of people driving, which inevitably causes an enormous, black parking lot.

The only thing that ends this is to strengthen the free market system again and support local businesses. A private owned business generally treats their property like their home and they will keep it clean and can easily change their policies to better fit the needs of the people and the environment. Unlike a corporation or franchise that must go through a lengthy process of meetings and decisions to unify all the stores with the same policy.

This cannot continue. We have seen with the EPA that we cannot trust government agencies to decide what is environmentally sound. It is OUR responsibility to demand from the supplier what we want and do not want and it is OUR responsibility to clean up the trash in our neighborhoods and insist to our courts and lawmakers that companies who pollute our neighborhoods and lungs need to change their manufacturing or shut down.

There is only one man that wants to give people these rights and equip the American public with the confidence to lead their own revolution without total government help. That means assemble with people to form boycotts in large enough numbers to show businesses we are serious. That man is Ron Paul. He wants to lower taxes by abolishing the IRS and Federal Reserve Bank that has robbed many people of their private businesses and create large amounts of interest to stunt their growth and to cause hesitation for others to make their own businesses.

Vote for Ron Paul and look him up on any search engine - especially you tube. He just had the chance to ask General Petreas serious questions regarding the war and the General was left speechless and nearly stuttering. I don't see any other candidate doing that.

It is no President's job to do this for us. It is OUR job. Stop pumping gas and stop buying from businesses that destabilize our culture and environment.

Peace and love should not be trends or words - they should be movements and emotions that can move mountains.

OK- I was almost into this site as an unbiased source of legitimate environmental information, until I saw the Obama.org link. What naive blind knuckleheads. Hope you all "feel good". Goodbye.

OK- I was almost into this site as an unbiased source of legitimate environmental information, until I saw the Obama.org link. What naive blind knuckleheads. Hope you all "feel good". Goodbye.

Anonymous - in our current system, they never will win. But is that a reason for us to give up? No! It's a reason for us to fight for third party/independent ballot access, and for independent media (I can guarantee you that nearly all of your sources of information are owned by the same corporations fighting against the green agenda), and for principles, rather than fighting for ourselves or for votes or for money.

The spoiler effect is a convenient excuse for a failing election system. The mechanics of voting are failing, the voting officials are untrustworthy, the overarching processes of our democracy are crumbling because of politics! And you expect me to just suck it up and support someone who is afraid to tell the truth and afraid to stand on principle, because they might not get elected?

When Mike Gravel was in the Senate, he risked his political career by reading the Pentagon Papers into the record in order to release them completely. It was the single best way to end the Vietnam War. McGovern refused to do it, along with many other top Democrats, but Gravel did it, because it was the right thing to do. He didn't care if he never got elected again (which he did), he was going to stand on his principles and stand up for what was right and stand against the status quo. And because of that he was instrumental in ending the Vietnam war.

So, no, I will not give into the same type of thinking that has gotten us into this environmental mess just because it has put on a different face.

Hillary has the diversity of experience to handle a plethora of issues effectively, Obama??? a first, unseasoned, trial and error, good willed, charismatic person of color. President...not so much.

I support those who have earned respect in the tasks they have been given and are not afraid to take on that which comes from to them "from-out-of-the-Blue!".

Obama, is a character study, NOT a President, not this time around he needs more experience. That, he could achieve as Vice President under Hillary Clinton. We are at war and the learning curve for a NEW President is 3 years save Bush which appears to be 8 years and counting. Hillary is stronger than she appears, in my opinion all women are, but politically the US cannot afford a “Popular, Chrematistic personality” as president we need a President who can and will serve all the needs of all US citizenry and fight for policies which IMPROVE the country and effect the World in the most positive ways.

There are many arguments to make here however; no matter which Democrat is sitting in the oval office next January, the Country and the planet will be better off. Nature…her name is Mother!

Emily hit the nail on the head.
No need for me to rewrite it; scroll up and read.
Then go out and do.

Well, Hillary's in bed with the masterminds behind free trade; Obama wants to add 100,000 more troops to Iraq; both have taken millions of dollars from lobbyists, major industry sectors, PACs, and the like; both support coal and nuclear expansion in this country...

Neither are good enough for the job.

Hillary Clinton, as any candidate has attracted groups with an agenda not in sync with her own. My concerns re: Obama is that he is too idealistic to notice who has and will help him and why. While Hillary is savvy enough and strong to set limits and boundaries for her flexibility when asked to appease any group.

Democrats are far more evenhanded with their loyalties than Republicans and when Bush "The sweetheart of warmongering oil magnets and his special interest groups who are also relatives", is out of office there may be more a float down the Potomac than algae.

John McCain is the most pleasant republican, in demeanor, that I have seen since the 50’s however; he is a wolf in sheep’s clothing. War, military occupations and protecting the industries which feed the monster are high on his etched in stone list. With whom does he sleep? The greater concern of all women and the Country in general is and should be, KEEP OUR SONS and HUSBANDS AT HOME!

Next, build a greener infrastructure and reduce this countries impact upon the environment. That is what I see in the Democratic leadership ahead. Hillary will make a good Mother of our Country, something the current fatherhood has royally and painfully dropped the ball.

Ross-

What experience does Clinton have that Obama doesn't? A couple more years in the Senate and 8 years of photo ops as first lady? The only legislative task Clinton was given as first lady, to transform healthcare, she failed miserably. Clinton is an arrogant control freak that doesn't know how to work with anyone that doesn't directly answer to her. Obama has proven to be a very intelligent pragmatist. If you look at history experience doesn't precede great Presidencies, personality, intelligence, judgment and character do. Nixon and W had massive amounts of experience, and yet their Presidencies were defined by their personalities, Nixon a paranoid crook and W an incompetent ideologue, not their experience. A Clinton Presidency would be wrought with partisanship, bitterness, secrecy, and business as usual, she'd be lucky to get half her health plan through Congress before her 4 years are up and that's all. An Obama Presidency would be characterized by pragmatism, openness, intelligence, a government for the people by the people. Not really a hard decision.

Why are you directing that toward me? I hate all three of 'em!

My apologies Ross, I'm an idiot. Names AFTER the post correspond to the post, not before. I was then responding to TenFeet2Hands.

I think any of them will struggle mightily. The EPA was designed by Nixon to fail. I don't believe that it will ever be a very strong arbiter of environmental stewardship, it wasn't ever mean to be by those that created it. It will always be strongly controlled by the President, whomever that is, because it was designed to be controlled by the President. It is not an independent agency, it is an executive agency, who's administrator reports to the pres.

That being said there are better people to be president on environmental issues than others... All three main candidates are better than Bush and Co. The dems would more than likely be far superior to McCain. Then again we thought Clinton-Gore were going to be be a great environmental team, and they let us down considerably... so only time will tell.

Ben, I agree with you regarding the past however; we ALL have learned a great deal of the necessity to curtail the abuse of the planet. Again I support the more experienced candidate who has first hand dealings with how and where the pitfalls shape themselves in Washington and, for that matter, the Nation. On the foreign scene, exposure to and with foreign dignitaries and contacts are also important.

Personally; I am far less concerned about the gender of our next president than I am about a lack of experience and inability to think quickly on ones feet and to be willing to correct their own mistakes before they impact the Nation adversely. Then there is the ability to choose the most effective and knowledgeable staff and advisors. The President of The USA is not the only decision maker before action is taken or declined. All aspects must be considered, by the voters so we do not spend unnecessary $ and time on self-serving endeavors such as OIL MO(B)NSTER BUSH!