The friendship started to founder as long ago as March, after the White House proposed abolishing the Council on Environmental Quality, a key oversight agency. At a meeting called to air protests from environmental groups, Gore began by talking up the administration’s environmental initiatives. Then he suddenly, and uncharacteristically, erupted. saying that he felt betrayed because the leaders had written directly to the president; Clinton had asked him what the letter from “your friends” was all about. one environment leader retorted: “You can’t take us to the woodshed!” and Gore abruptly ended the meeting. Two weeks later, when Clinton removed provisions raising grazing and mining fees on public lands from his 1994 budget in a bid for votes from Western senators, environmentalists were even more outraged. National Wildlife Federation president Jay Hair bluntly declared that “what started out like a love affair” between greens and the administration had degenerated into “date rape.”

It wasn’t supposed to be like this. From Gore on down, many of Clinton’s top appointments read like a Who’s Who of American greens. Babbitt was president of the League of Conservation Voters, and he joked that he was leading a “liberation force” when he took over interior from his Republican predecessors. Some activists were positively giddy over their new posts. When Rafe Pomerance, formerly of the World Resources Institute, and Brooks Yeager, formerly of the Audubon Society, found themselves representing State and Interior at a conference in Geneva, they grinned at each other like high-school buddies who had infiltrated a sorority party. “Can you believe this?” asked Yeager.

But this euphoria is tempered by impatience, often sparked by fellow greens. Administration enviros complain that their former colleagues don’t understand the cold realities of governing. “Environmentalists are like a football team with only one play: a 95 yard touchdown pass,” says one administration official with impeccable green credentials. Babbitt himself seems resigned to the role of compromiser and the flak it can bring. “My fate is always to make a large step forward, only to have my friends say, ‘You should have taken two large steps’,” he says.

Clinton seems to be having as much difficulty with the special interests that elected him as Bush did with right-wing groups. Environmentalists complain that Clinton’s willingness to make trade-offs has gone too far on issues from logging to the Everglades (chart). “Simply doing better than Bush isn’t good enough,” says Defenders of Wildlife president Rodger Schlickeisen. “This can’t be as good as it gets.” Some groups also fear that accepting less than their full agenda from Clinton will hurt their fundraising; as it is, many find their budgets depleted now that colorful enemies like James Watt no longer roam Interior. Rifts are also growing between some groups. Defenders of Wildlife and the National Wildlife Federation might sound synonymous to some, but they have split over NAFTA. When the upstart Defenders of Wildlife warned that the bill might not sufficiently protect dolphins, the more mainstream NWF accused it of raising “phony environmental arguments.”

And this is only the beginning. The White House has yet to confront such contentious issues as the Clean Water Act, Superfund and the Endangered Species Act, all of which are due for reauthorization. Environmental groups will have to decide whether they are more effective working with the administration or continuing the role they assumed in the Reagan-Bush years as indignant dissidents. “I wondered early on if the environmental community was capable of playing an insider’s game,” sighs NWF vice president Sharon Newsome. “I’ve come to the conclusion we’re not.” Let’s face it, taking on your enemies is more fun than fighting with your friends.