MotherJones ND93: Bill’s Green Card

Let our journalists help you make sense of the noise: Subscribe to the Mother Jones Daily newsletter and get a recap of news that matters.

We polled “green” groups and leaders on how they grade President Clinton on his work thus far. A few groups declined to participate, reluctant perhaps to judge or be judged.

Rainforest Action Network’s Randy Hayes: “Reagan and Bush were ecological idiots. If they were an F, Clinton and Gore are a solid B. But the earth needs an A+, so we’re still in trouble.” On NAFTA: “A smokescreen for real change.”

Greenpeace: “A for rhetoric; D for performance.”

Earth First! founder Mike Roselle, on the failing grade: “Why? The silence of Al Gore. [Clinton] should have come out swinging. We’re as disappointed as the gays.” On wetlands: “He’s protecting industry over wildlife. Talk is cheap. Where’s the action?” On nuclear power: “It’s more dangerous now than it was at the time of Three Mile Island.”

David Brower, formerly of the Sierra Club and Friends of the Earth; head of Earth Island Institute: “Grading does not encompass potential. It’s hard to evaluate what the president can do, especially with a hostile press. I’d like to see ‘Free Al Gore’ bumper stickers.'” [See “Where are you, Al?” this issue.]

Earth Island Institute’s Gar Smith: “How do you measure an administration? Anyone looks like a hero compared to that last crowd.” On NAFTA: “An unmitigated disaster.”

Environmental Defense Fund: “Incomplete–but we’d like to offer him extra credit. He held to his guns as best he could in working his budget through.”

Wilderness Society: “Bruce Babbitt is a superlative choice, but we don’t know if we’ve got the Beatles or Freddie and the Dreamers until they’ve been out there.”

National Resource Defense Council on forests: “A commendable effort to resolve the issue, but a disappointing product.” On wildlife: “An unexcused absence” for “failing to take real initiative.”

Note: The Sierra Club set conditions that space would not allow us to accommodate.


Headshot of Editor in Chief of Mother Jones, Clara Jeffery

It sure feels that way to me, and here at Mother Jones, we’ve been thinking a lot about what journalism needs to do differently, and how we can have the biggest impact.

We kept coming back to one word: corruption. Democracy and the rule of law being undermined by those with wealth and power for their own gain. So we're launching an ambitious Mother Jones Corruption Project to do deep, time-intensive reporting on systemic corruption, and asking the MoJo community to help crowdfund it.

We aim to hire, build a team, and give them the time and space needed to understand how we got here and how we might get out. We want to dig into the forces and decisions that have allowed massive conflicts of interest, influence peddling, and win-at-all-costs politics to flourish.

It's unlike anything we've done, and we have seed funding to get started, but we're looking to raise $500,000 from readers by July when we'll be making key budgeting decisions—and the more resources we have by then, the deeper we can dig. If our plan sounds good to you, please help kickstart it with a tax-deductible donation today.

Thanks for reading—whether or not you can pitch in today, or ever, I'm glad you're with us.

Signed by Clara Jeffery

Clara Jeffery, Editor-in-Chief

payment methods

We Recommend