DRAFT GORE: AL GORE FOR PRESIDENT 2008

Our thanks to all of you who signed the petition. If you didn't sign yet, please click here to sign. If you already signed, make sure to tell your friends about this petition today!

#	First Name	Last Name	State	Comments
238951	Kathleen	Sanders	WA	You ar the only person who can save America from herself...and address Global Warming by starting a second Industrial Revolution based on renewable energy...all those new jobs we need so desperately...500,000 thousand more of us voted for you in 2000...isn't that the perfect platform!
238952	sandra	berg	NJ	looks like the dems are going to snatch defeat out of the jaws of victory again. please get in this race. youre the only one who can change that outcome. both candidates are already too damaged to win and even i cant stand the idea of another 8 years of the clintons. please run and reverse the tide. you already won once-i know you can do it again. respectfully yours, sandra h berg
238953	Charity	Ryan	CA	Please help us out of this mess! We need a strong leader - and that should be you!!!
238954	Eric	von Helms	WI
238955	Craig	Smith	OH	Mr. Gore I am a conservative republican and I believe you would do a better job as president than any of the current candidates, your country needs you.
238956	Jennifer	von Helms	WI	Stop the infighting and give us a candidate who can unite the Democratic party AND beat John McCain!
238957	Daniel	Fivel	VT	Dear VP Gore: To see that neither Obama nor Clinton are electable go to electoral-vote.com which has all of the latest polls in a matchup with McCain. Only you can save us from four more years of neglect of the climate change problem.
238958	Marcia	Limberger	CT	Yes, please, let's draft Al Gore for the Demoncratic nomination!
238959	Barry	Howard	NJ	Please throw your hat into the ring...
238960	April	Lindeburg	MO
238961	Derek	Hansen	TX
238962	robert	keefe	MA	c'mon al!
238963	Lance	Milanovich	FL
238964	Melissa	Gioffredo	OH
238965	Kristie	Abbott-Walker	CA	I believe in you and in your vision. Please run, win, and bring dignity back to American politics.
238966	elane	fine	MA
238967	Harry	Mills	FL	He is the only man who can lead America out of the catastrophe created when the eletion was stolen from him.
238968	Tom	Presley	MS	He has more insight concerning our country and the world and I believe it would be a crime if he did not stand up and do the right thing and run for President.
238969	Ted	Spalding	TX	We need you, Al!
238970	Benjamin	Eisner	TX
238971	rob	florence	LA	“A few more nights like Wednesday and the Democrats may find themselves lagging behind McCain. He has hardly struck a blow at them. Obama and Clinton are doing such a good job of demolishing each other, or scuttling their own chances, that McCain conceivably could coast to victory....” “Democratic rivals Barack Obama and Hillary Rodham Clinton turned up the rhetoric Saturday in their increasingly heated primary battle as she issued a new debate challenge and he complained of a race that's largely been reduced to trivia while working families feel economic pain....” Is Al Gore the Answer? Wednesday, Mar. 26, 2008 By JOE KLEIN, TIME Magazine Unlike Barack Obama, Bill Clinton does not believe in "the fierce urgency of now." The former President has an exquisitely languid sense of how political time unfurls. He understands that those moments the political community, especially the media, considers urgent usually aren't. He has seen his own election and reelection—and completing his second term—pronounced "impossible" and lived to tell the tale. He remembers that in spring 1992 he had pretty much won the Democratic nomination but was considered a dead man walking, running third behind Bush the Elder and Ross Perot. He knows that April is the silly season in presidential politics, the moment when candidates involved in a bruising primary battle seem weakest and bloodied, as both Hillary Clinton and Obama do now. It's the moment when pundits demand action—"Drop out, Hillary!"—and propound foolish theories. And so I'm rather embarrassed to admit that I'm slouching toward, well, a theory: if this race continues to slide downhill, the answer to the Democratic Party's dilemma may turn out to be Al Gore. This April promises to be crueler than most. The two campaigns have started attacking each other with chainsaws, while the Republican John McCain is moving ahead in some national polls. At this point, Clinton can only win the nomination ugly: by superdelegates abandoning Obama and turning to her, in droves—not impossible, but not very likely either. Even if Clinton did overtake Obama, it would be very difficult for her to win the presidency: African Americans would never forgive her for "stealing" the nomination. They would simply stay home in November, as would the Obamista youth. (Although the former President is probably thinking: Yeah, but John McCain is a flagrantly flawed candidate too—I'd accept even a corrupted nomination and take my chances.) Which is not to say that Clinton's candidacy is entirely without purpose now that she is pursuing a Republican-style race gambit, questioning Obama's 20-year relationship with the Rev. Jeremiah "God damn America" Wright. Democrats will soon learn how damaging that relationship might be in a general election. They'll also see if Obama has the gumption to bounce back, work hard—not just arena rallies for college kids but roundtables for the grizzled and unemployed in American Legion halls—and change the minds that have turned against him. The main reason superdelegates have not yet rallied round Obama is that the party is collectively holding its breath, waiting to see how he performs in Pennsylvania, North Carolina and Indiana. He will probably do well enough to secure the nomination. But what if he tanks? What if he can't buy a white working-class vote? What if he loses all three states badly and continues to lose after that? I'd guess that the Democratic Party would still give him the nomination rather than turn to Clinton. But no one would be very happy—and a year that should have been an easy Democratic victory, given the state of the economy and the unpopularity of the incumbent, might slip away. Which brings us back to Al Gore. Pish-tosh, you say, and you're probably right. But let's play a little. Let's say the elders of the Democratic Party decide, when the primaries end, that neither Obama nor Clinton is viable. Let's also assume—and this may be a real stretch—that such elders are strong and smart enough to act. All they'd have to do would be to convince a significant fraction of their superdelegate friends, maybe fewer than 100, to announce that they were taking a pass on the first ballot at the Denver convention, which would deny the 2,025 votes necessary to Obama or Clinton. What if they then approached Gore and asked him to be the nominee, for the good of the party—and suggested that he take Obama as his running mate? Of course, Obama would have to be a party to the deal and bring his 1,900 or so delegates along. I played out that scenario with about a dozen prominent Democrats recently, from various sectors of the party, including both Obama and Clinton partisans. Most said it was extremely unlikely ... and a pretty interesting idea. A prominent fund raiser told me, "Gore-Obama is the ticket a lot of people wanted in the first place." A congressional Democrat told me, "This could be our way out of a mess." Others suggested Gore was painfully aware of his limitations as a candidate. "I don't know that he'd be interested, even if you handed it to him," said a Gore friend. Chances are, no one will hand it to him. The Democratic Party would have to be monumentally desperate come June. And yet ... is this scenario any more preposterous than the one that gave John McCain the Republican nomination? Yes, it's silly season. But this has been an exceptionally "silly" year. ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Voters Trust McCain More than Either Democratic Candidate on Key Issues rasmussenreports.com Mon Apr 28, 9:46 AM ET On as series of key Election 2008 issues, voters generally trust Democrats more than Republicans on most key electoral issues. At the same time, however, John McCain is trusted more than Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama on these issues (see national polling. ADVERTISEMENT The Economy Forty-eight percent (48%) trust Democrats more than Republicans when it comes to the economy while 40% trust the GOP more. Those numbers are reversed when real names are inserted instead of party labels. Given a choice between McCain and Clinton, 47% trust McCain more while 42% prefer the former First Lady. Given a choice between McCain and Obama on the economy, 46% trust the GOP nominee while 39% opt for the Democratic frontrunner. The economy is the top issue of Election 2008 and is considered Very Important by 79% of voters. War in Iraq Tracking polls have shown that roughly 6-out-of-ten Americans want troops home from Iraq within a year. However, only about one-in-four want the troops brought home immediately. The gap between those numbers is filled by Americans who both parties have a chance to persuade during Election 2008. Overall, when it comes to Iraq, Democrats are currently trusted more by 45% of voters and the GOP is trusted more by 43%. However, when it comes to the War in Iraq, McCain is trusted by more than either Democrat. Fifty percent (50%) trust McCain over Clinton while 40% hold the opposite view. Forty-eight percent (48%) trust McCain over Obama while 39% prefer Obama. National Security The broader topic of National Security is one of the few issues where Republicans have a generic advantage over Democrats. However, following seven years of the Bush Administration, the GOP advantage on this issue has declined. Currently, 47% of voters trust Republicans more on this issue while 42% trust the Democrats more. However, once again, McCain outperforms the party label and dominates against either Democrat. When it comes to national security, McCain is trusted more than Clinton by a 54% to 34% margin. With Obama, McCain's advantage is 52% to 31%. Government Ethics and Corruption This is the issue that breaks the pattern. Democrats are trusted more than Republicans by a 38% to 32% margin. Most unaffiliated voters don't trust either party on the topic. Here, Obama outperforms the Democratic Party label and is trusted more than McCain by a 44% to 33% margin. However, McCain is trusted more than Clinton, 47% to 34%. Taxes On taxes, Republicans are preferred over Democrats, 46% to 42%. McCain is trusted over Clinton 45% to 36% and by a 41% to 38% margin over Obama. On average, McCain outperforms the generic Republican label by seven points when matched against Obama and by thirteen points against Clinton. The gap between Obama and Clinton is caused almost entirely by the difference on the issue of Government Ethics and Corruption. This telephone survey of 400 Likely Voters per night was conducted by Rasmussen Reports April 21-24, 2008. The margin of sampling error for the survey is +/- 3.5 percentage points with a 95% level of confidence. ------------------------------------------------------------------- Obama dread turns to glee for the GOP By JOSH KRAUSHAAR \| 4/28/08 8:17 PM EST Text Size: A new NRCC ad refers to Obama’s ranking by National Journal as having “the most liberal voting record in the U.S. Senate.” For months, GOP operatives spoke with dread of the prospects of running against Barack Obama in the fall. But after weeks of controversies over his former pastor, his views of blue-collar voters and even the sincerity of his patriotism, Republicans now are ready to place a $500,000 bet that Obama will be a heavy burden on down-ballot Democrats. That’s the approximate amount of advertising purchased so far by the National Republican Congressional Committee and GOP allies to link Democratic congressional hopefuls in Mississippi and Louisiana to their party’s potential presidential nominee. Whereas Obama once seemed an almost cultlike figure who transcended race and class, the narrative that has emerged from his campaign’s recent trials has given Republicans hope that the Illinois senator can be tagged as an elitist with the same effectiveness with which Michael Dukakis and John F. Kerry were so labeled. The elitist story line has provided Republicans with press release fodder against freshman Democratic House members and statewide elected officials in roughly two dozen states. Republican-leaning districts could be particularly fertile ground for Obama-focused attacks, GOP officials say. “I think he’s the weaker candidate, and I’ve thought that for over a year now,” NRCC Chairman Tom Cole (Okla.) said at a briefing on Monday. “He’s very inexperienced. He is by any definition liberal and to the left of Hillary Clinton, and he will give us plenty of ideological divisions to work with.” Besides the two special congressional elections in Mississippi and Louisiana next month, Republicans believe they can also exploit Obama’s vulnerabilities in House battlegrounds where he has struggled to win over key demographic groups. Those areas include three culturally conservative seats in Pennsylvania, where Obama lost badly in last week’s primary, and three Cuban-American districts in Florida that Democrats are seriously contesting for the first time. In the Deep South, Republicans think making an explicit connection to Obama will allow them to hold on to districts where Democrats have gained traction by recruiting culturally conservative candidates who have distanced themselves from the national party. “If they voted up here the way they were running, believe me, they could come here and join the [conservative] Republican Study Committee in good standing,” Cole said. In Mississippi and Louisiana, where Democratic challengers Travis Childers and Don Cazayoux are seen as having real chances to win historically scarlet-red congressional seats, Democratic officials say the GOP is grasping at straws. “The NRCC and its GOP allies are desperate to distract voters from their extremely flawed candidates,” said Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee Communications Director Jennifer Crider. But those concerns aren’t deterring a collection of groups from testing the waters with anti-Obama ads in Mississippi and Louisiana. The NRCC, the conservative advocacy group Freedom’s Watch and the campaign of Mississippi candidate Greg Davis combined have put up about $500,000 in advertising explicitly connecting Cazayoux and Childers to Obama. The NRCC is up with a new spot in Mississippi’s 1st District in which Childers is flanked by Kerry and Obama. The ad refers to Obama’s ranking by National Journal as having “the most liberal voting record in the U.S. Senate.” Davis’ newly released ad invokes Obama’s controversial former pastor, the Rev. Jeremiah Wright, arguing that Childers should have spoken out against Wright’s divisive rhetoric but instead “said nothing.” “Travis Childers. He took Obama’s endorsement over our conservative values,” a narrator in the ad goes on to say. Both Democrats have distanced themselves from Obama, arguing that the races hinge more on local issues than on the national landscape. But Cole argued that if Republicans can pull off twin victories in the special elections, the advertising connecting the candidates to Obama will have played a key role in closing what were once Democratic leads. Both polling and actual election results have shown the Democratic candidates ahead in the two races. In Mississippi, Childers nearly picked up Sen. Roger Wicker’s former House seat in the first round of special election balloting but missed an outright victory by several hundred votes. He faces Davis in a runoff next month. In Louisiana, Cazayoux’s campaign has released two internal polls showing him with a lead over his Republican opponent, former state Rep. Woody Jenkins. The NRCC’s internal polling has shown similar numbers, and the committee just commissioned a new poll to see if the Obama connection has made an impact. At the briefing, Cole cited internal committee polling from earlier this month that showed Arizona Sen. John McCain leading Obama 65 percent to 30 percent in a head-to-head matchup in Mississippi’s 1st District. In Louisiana, the committee has polling that shows only 37 percent of districtwide voters view Obama favorably, while 50 percent view him unfavorably. Republicans also run a risk in playing the Obama card so early. If Democrats are able to pick up one of the special election seats in these highly conservative districts, it may indicate that a cookie-cutter approach connecting Obama to congressional candidates might not work as well as advertised. “When they do the guilt by association, it’s particularly egregious. It’s kind of goofy,” said Democratic pollster John Anzalone, who is handling polling for both Childers and Cazayoux. The overt use of Obama as a bogeyman also runs the risk, particularly in the South, of creating racial connotations that could backfire. McCain and the Republican National Committee last week denounced an ad from the state GOP attacking Democratic gubernatorial candidates Beverly Perdue and Richard Moore for their ties to Obama. “No one underestimates the power of race in the Deep South, but at the same time, I think they’re barking up the wrong tree,” said Anzalone. “They think they have a great opportunity by pulling the race card here, but I think they’ve really gotten off message.” Anzalone said his numbers show Cazayoux holding his support among white voters despite the Obama ads. Democrats point to the Obama ads as a potentially risky move in these Southern districts that have a significant share of African-American voters. “That’s a pretty daring move when the district is 30 percent African-American,” said one Democratic operative. “What they’re clearly trying to do is depress the white turnout.” Still, Obama’s weakness among blue-collar, working-class voters has not gone unnoticed by members of Congress who may have to share a ballot with him. Many freshman Democrats who represent culturally conservative districts, including Reps. Christopher P. Carney (D-Pa.), Jason Altmire (D-Pa.), Brad Ellsworth (D-Ind.) and Heath Shuler (D-N.C.), have stayed on the sidelines so far in the primary season. Carney and Altmire are facing highly competitive reelection bids themselves — and last week’s presidential primary results could give them new cause for concern. Obama lost every county in Carney’s northeastern Pennsylvania district by double-digit margins — including the district’s Scranton-area base, by nearly 50 points. Obama also performed particularly poorly in Altmire’s district, losing two key exurban Pittsburgh counties within his district — Beaver and Lawrence — with 30 percent of the vote or less. Four days before the primary, House GOP leader John A. Boehner appeared at a press conference with Altmire’s Republican opponent and called on the Democratic freshman to apologize for Obama’s remarks about small towns in Pennsylvania. “It’s time for Barack Obama to apologize to voters here in Pennsylvania and across the Midwest,” said Boehner. “And it’s time for his supporters in Congress to defend their constituents and denounce Obama’s patronizing rhetoric.” “If I’m John McCain, I think I can win in Pennsylvania,” said Cole. “[Democratic freshmen] are worried they’ll finally have to run with someone whose positions are at odds with what they believe.” In Florida, Republicans believe that Obama’s comments that seem to advocate a more normalized relationship with Cuba will benefit Republicans in three heavily Cuban-American districts in South Florida who are facing contested reelection bids. DCCC Chairman Chris Van Hollen (Md.) has been campaigning in South Florida this week with three Democratic recruits running against Reps. Lincoln Diaz-Balart (R-Fla.), Mario Diaz-Balart (R-Fla.) and Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (R-Fla.). Downside of Obama Strategy Losses in Big States Spur General-Election Fears By Jonathan Weisman and Shailagh Murray Washington Post Staff Writers Saturday, March 8, 2008; A01 Democrats in Wyoming will hold caucuses today and -- following what is now a familiar pattern -- are expected to give Sen. Barack Obama the majority of their 12 pledged delegates. The Illinois Democrat's strength in a Republican state that has not voted for a Democratic presidential candidate since 1964 is the latest example of an ingenious strategy that neatly addresses the advantage Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (N.Y.) enjoys in Democratic strongholds where she and her husband have long-standing ties. But Obama's losses Tuesday in Texas and Ohio -- coupled with his Feb. 5 defeats in California, New York and New Jersey -- have not only shown the strategy's downside. They have also given supporters of Clinton an opening for an argument that winning over affluent, educated white voters in small Democratic enclaves, such as Boise, Idaho, and Salt Lake City, and running up the score with African Americans in the Republican South exaggerate his strengths in states that will not vote Democratic in the fall. If Obama becomes the Democratic nominee but cannot win support from working-class whites and Hispanics, they argue, then Democrats will not retake the White House in November. "If you can't win in the Southwest, if you don't win Ohio, if you don't win Pennsylvania, you've got problems in November," said Sen. Robert Menendez (D-N.J.), a Clinton supporter. Even some Obama advisers see a real problem. "Ultimately, all that matters is how the nominee stacks up against John McCain," said one adviser who spoke on the condition of anonymity, referring to the senator from Arizona and presumptive GOP nominee. "Right now, Barack is not connecting with the children of the Reagan Democrats. That's a real concern." "It's now a battle between the base and the new young Democrats and Democrats who are more energized than they've been in the past," agreed Sen. Ben Nelson (D-Neb.), an Obama supporter. "I don't know how that's going to play out." With the campaign moving next week to Mississippi, another Republican state where Obama is expected to do well, these questions will only grow louder as the Clinton camp tries to minimize the importance of those states while raising the stakes for Pennsylvania on April 22. Obama and his allies counter that California and New York are firmly in the Democratic column and that, as the party's nominee, he could carry them just as easily as Clinton. David Plouffe, Obama's campaign manager, said he is not going to be goaded into shifting from the current strategy, which is to get as many delegates from wherever he can. And he rejects what he says is the Clinton campaign's attempt to give greater legitimacy to certain states -- especially Pennsylvania, where Clinton is expected to have an advantage because of her support from the Democratic establishment there and because its demographics are similar to Ohio's. But many Democratic elected officials are worried. "No one's jumping up and down in Okeechobee, Florida, saying we've got a perfect ticket," agreed Rep. Tim Mahoney (Fla.), a moderate, unaffiliated Democrat in a swing district. "If you're a Barack Obama, you're going to have to figure out how to reach out to white, middle-aged men." Sen. Ken Salazar (D-Colo.), who like Mahoney has not endorsed either Obama or Clinton, is concerned about Obama's poor performance among Latino voters in California and Texas. "It's unfortunate," he said, "because Barack Obama has done very well with Latino voters in Illinois, and I know his heart, and it's for an inclusive agenda." Obama rejects the charge that he has failed to reach important segments of the party, noting that he has shown he can crack Clinton's coalition of working-class voters, women and Latinos with his wins in the bellwether state of Missouri, the swing state of Virginia and the Rust Belt redoubt of Wisconsin. He also showed that he can expand the battleground into the coveted Mountain West, with his convincing win in Colorado. "I don't buy into this demographic argument," Obama said. "Missouri, Wisconsin, Virginia -- in many of these states we've won the white vote and the blue-collar vote and so forth. I think it is very important not to somehow focus on a handful of states because the Clintons say those states are important and that the other states are unimportant." To be sure, Team Obama's small-state strategy may have been the candidate's only option against a far-better-known opponent, and it has worked. In the Feb. 5 Super Tuesday contests that Obama's campaign staff had hoped to merely survive, Obama and Clinton just about broke even. He won more delegates in Kansas and Idaho than she won in New Jersey. Her big win in California -- with its net gain of 41 delegates -- was negated by his wins in Georgia and Nebraska. "Senator Obama went where he had to go," said former Iowa governor Tom Vilsack (D), a Clinton backer. "They had a well-thought-out strategic plan, and they carried it out with real discipline." In the ensuing weeks, Obama appeared to consolidate his support among the rest of the Democratic coalition. He prevailed in the diverse state of Missouri, won over rural and working-class whites in his Virginia and Maryland routs, and then prevailed easily in Wisconsin. David Axelrod, Obama's chief campaign strategist, said the strategy had an upside beyond the compiling of delegates. Obama was building a case with superdelegates that his appeal to nontraditional voters would have a ripple effect down the ballot in swing states such as Colorado and Iowa, where some of those superdelegates will be running for reelection. And by building organizations in all 50 states, Obama can make the case that he has an infrastructure primed and ready for the general election. Then came Ohio and Texas, and all the old fears of Obama's narrow appeal came flooding back. "A lot of the states he's winning are states that we're not going to win in November," said Rep. Frank Pallone Jr. (D-N.J.), a Clinton supporter. "It's not a strategy that bodes well, in my opinion." A Clinton campaign memo on Wednesday noted that of the 11 core Republican states that have held primaries or caucuses, Obama has won 10: Utah, Idaho, Nebraska, North Dakota, Alabama, Alaska, Kansas, South Carolina, Georgia and Louisiana. In 2004, Sen. John F. Kerry (Mass.), the Democratic nominee, lost each of these states by 15 points or more. Obama aides still insist that it is a strategy that will work. Even after Tuesday, when he lost three out of four contests, Obama maintained his delegate lead. Indeed, his strength in the parallel caucuses in Texas may have actually given him more delegates than Clinton, even though she won the popular vote by 51 percent to 47 percent. But his campaign faces a legitimacy test that is beginning to resonate throughout the Democratic establishment: Can Obama win the big prizes? With Pennsylvania looming, Obama has few good options. Some advisers say he should stick to a plan, hatched before Tuesday's defeats, to spend some time in the next weeks traveling to Europe, Israel and Asia to bolster his credentials for the general election. But if he cedes the state completely, he destroys his strategy of winning big in the small states and staying close in the big ones. Axelrod and other Obama aides said they have learned their lesson from Tuesday. Rather than accept Pennsylvania as a tiebreaker, they will play down their chances there and keep the focus on states such as North Carolina and Indiana, where they think their chances are better. Pennsylvania's primary will be followed by contests in West Virginia, Indiana and Kentucky, all of which have similar, lunch-pail demographics. If Clinton enters the summer on a roll, especially in the big states, the superdelegates may no longer feel that backing her would be opposing the will of the voters, an Obama supporter said. "Superdelegates are politicians. They will not buck the will of the voters," said a superdelegate supporting Obama. "The danger point comes if the superdelegates don't see a vote for Clinton as bucking anyone." ---------------------------------------------- For Democrats, increased fears of a long fight By Adam Nagourney and Jeff Zeleny Published: March 16, 2008 WASHINGTON: Lacking a clear route to the selection of a Democratic presidential nominee, the party's uncommitted superdelegates say they are growing increasingly concerned about the risks of a prolonged fight between Senators Hillary Rodham Clinton and Barack Obama, and perplexed about how to resolve the conflict. Interviews with dozens of undecided superdelegates — the elected officials and party leaders who could hold the balance of power for the nomination — found them uncertain about who, if anyone, would step in to fill a leadership vacuum and help guide the contest to a conclusion that would not weaken the Democratic ticket in the general election. While many superdelegates said they intended to keep their options open as the race continued to play out over the next three months, the interviews suggested that the playing field was tilting slightly toward Obama in one potentially vital respect. Many of them said that in deciding whom to support, they would adopt what Obama's campaign has advocated as the essential principle: reflecting the will of the voters. Obama has won more states, a greater share of the popular vote and more pledged delegates than Clinton. A New York Times survey of superdelegates last week found that Obama had been winning over more of them recently than Clinton had, though Clinton retained an overall lead among those who have made a choice. Over the past month, according to the survey, Obama, of Illinois, picked up 54 superdelegates; Clinton, of New York, picked up 31. "If we get to the end and Senator Obama has won more states, has more delegates and more popular vote," said Representative Jason Altmire, Democrat of Pennsylvania, who is undecided, "I would need some sort of rationale for why at that point any superdelegate would go the other way, seeing that the people have spoken." Altmire said he was repeating an argument that he made to Clinton during a session at her house in Washington on Thursday night with uncommitted superdelegates. The interviews were conducted at a time of rising displays of animosity between Clinton and Obama, with Clinton repeatedly arguing that Obama did not have the foreign policy credentials to stand up to Senator John McCain of Arizona, the likely Republican nominee. Several superdelegates said they were concerned that this could hurt the Democratic Party in the fall elections and put pressure on some of them to endorse one of the candidates to bring the contest to a quicker conclusion. "It would be nice to find a way to wrap it up," said Representative Chris Van Hollen of Maryland, chairman of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, who has not committed to either candidate. "If the current trajectory of the debate continues, the divisions will make it more difficult for many of our candidates." Over all, the interviews with these influential Democrats presents a portrait of a particularly exclusive political community in flux, looking for an exit strategy and hoping they will be relieved of making an excruciating decision that could lose them friends and supporters at home. "This was everybody's worse nightmare come to fruition," said Richard Machacek, an uncommitted superdelegate from Iowa, who said he was struggling over what to do. In Ohio, Senator Sherrod Brown would seemingly have an easy task. Clinton won his state by 10 points. If the nominating fight had to be resolved by party leaders, wouldn't he side with her? Not necessarily. "It's the overall popular vote, it's the overall delegates, it's who is bringing energy to the campaign, it's who has momentum," Brown said. "It should be wrapped up before the convention, and I think it will be." Representative John Murtha, Democrat of Pennsylvania, is not wringing his hands. "I don't see the problem," he said. "People complain and criticize each other, and then they always work it out." But Eileen Macoll, a Democratic county chairwoman from Washington State, is expecting something different — and not exactly looking forward to it. "I think it's going to go all the way to the floor," Macoll said. "We will take the vote and that will be the nominee. We're going to see that happen." The delegates said they hoped to avoid being portrayed as party elites overturning the will of Democratic voters. They spoke of having some power broker — the names mentioned included Howard Dean, the chairman of the Democratic National Committee; former Vice President Al Gore; and Speaker Nancy Pelosi — step in to forge a deal. Yet even as some of them pleaded for intervention, they said they were not sure what could be done in a race with two candidates who have so much support. "It think it has got to be brokered before the convention," said Bill George, the head of the A.F.L.-C.I.O. in Pennsylvania. "I think there should be a couple of people — maybe Howard Dean and Al Gore, they have some credibility — to do it. Dean should call a meeting, and the two camps should be forced to do it." When asked how, George just laughed. "I just think the two campaigns have to do it," he said. "I think we lose credibility in America if we let some group come in and do it." But David Parker, a superdelegate from North Carolina, was not about to give much deference to any political leader in a contest that was of such consequence. "I don't think too many people are going to listen to Howard Dean unless he appointed them," Parker said. "The D.N.C. is not some monolithic group that is going to move as a body." While the situation is fluid and could change as the voting plays out in Pennsylvania next month and in a series of primaries and caucuses scheduled to last into June, there seems to be intensifying support for the idea that superdelegates should follow the voters rather than for the approach promoted by Clinton: that they should exercise their own judgment about who would make the best president. "If the votes of the superdelegates overturn what's happened in the elections, it would be harmful to the Democratic Party," Pelosi, Democrat of California, said in an interview to be broadcast Sunday on ABC's "This Week." Members of Congress from states where Clinton won or seems likely to win, including Brown in Ohio and Altmire in Pennsylvania, made a point of saying they would not feel bound by how their states voted. "Barack's impressive showing in our state is attractive to me," said Senator Amy Klobuchar, Democrat of Minnesota, where Obama beat Clinton two to one in the popular vote last month. "If somehow 200 superdelegates decide this, it will be problematic." And there were indications that Clinton is facing some questions among the superdelegates about her electability and her potential effect on other Democratic candidates in November. "A key question to me is how the candidates would affect the down-ballot races," said Steven Achelpohl, the Democratic state chairman in Nebraska. "I think Obama would have a more positive impact on our other races out here in Nebraska." As of Friday, Clinton claimed 254 superdelegates, and the Obama campaign said it had commitments from 213; the figures provided by the campaigns differed somewhat from those tallied by The Times. Obama has won 1,367 delegates in primaries and caucuses, compared with 1,224 for Clinton, based on a count and projection by The Times. A candidate needs 2,025 votes to win the nomination. There are 246 superdelegates who are not listed by either campaign as supporters and are viewed as uncommitted. Of those, 107 are from states where Obama won nominating contests, compared with 83 for Clinton. An additional 56 come from states that have not yet voted. Of the 246 uncommitted superdelegates, 75 are women, 10 are governors and 100 are in Congress. So far, Obama and Clinton are relatively even when it comes to competing for elected officials; Clinton's overall advantage among superdelegates has come from current and former party officials, reflecting the ties she and her husband have built over the years. Some argued that the fighting between Clinton and Obama was good for the party, by keeping the candidates in the news and energizing Democrats. "People are just enthusiastic about their candidates — I don't find any rancor here," said Jennifer Moore, chairwoman of the Kentucky Democratic Party. But many called on Clinton and Obama to tone down the rhetoric, warning that it could polarize the party and damage the eventual nominee in the general election battle. "I am very concerned about it, and I think they ought to cut it out," Achelpohl said. "We need to be unified in the end. Some of these remarks that people are making on both sides are unacceptable." The superdelegates said in interviews that more than anything they wanted the contest resolved before Democrats assemble in Denver at the end of August. "Every day that this continues, people can surmise that this is going to the convention in Colorado and it could be decided by the superdelegates," said Governor Joe Manchin III of West Virginia, the head of the Democratic Governors Association. "There is not a superdelegate that I have spoken to who wants that to happen." ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------- By winning back unhappy GOP voters, McCain makes it a race By ALAN FRAM and TREVOR TOMPSON, Associated Press Writers 4/17/08 WASHINGTON (AP) — Republicans are no longer underdogs in the race for the White House. To pull that off, John McCain has attracted disgruntled GOP voters, independents and even some moderate Democrats who shunned his party last fall. Partly thanks to an increasingly likable image, the Republican presidential candidate has pulled even with the two Democrats still brawling for their party's nomination, according to an Associated Press-Yahoo news poll released Thursday. Just five months ago — before either party had winnowed its field — the survey showed people preferred sending an unnamed Democrat over a Republican to the White House by 13 percentage points. Also helping the Arizona senator close the gap: Peoples' opinions of Hillary Rodham Clinton have soured slightly, while their views of Barack Obama have improved though less impressively than McCain's. The survey suggests that those switching to McCain are largely attuned to his personal qualities and McCain may be benefiting as the two Democrats snipe at each other during their prolonged nomination fight. David Mason of Richmond, Va., is typical of the voters McCain has gained since last November, when the 46-year-old personal trainer was undecided. Mason calls himself an independent and voted in 2004 for President Bush, whom he considers a strong leader but a disappointment due to the "no-win situation" in Iraq. "It's not that I'm that much in favor of McCain, it's the other two are turning me off," Mason said of Clinton and Obama, the senators from New York and Illinois, in explaining his move toward McCain. As for the Republican's experiences as a Vietnam War prisoner and in the Senate, Mason said, "All he's been through is an asset." By tracking the same group of roughly 2,000 people throughout the campaign, the AP-Yahoo poll can gauge how individual views are evolving. What's clear is that some Republican-leaning voters who backed Bush in 2004 but lost enthusiasm for him are returning to the GOP fold _ along with a smaller but significant number of Democrats who have come to dislike their party's two contenders. The findings of the survey, conducted by Knowledge Networks, provide a preview of one of this fall's battlegrounds. Though some unhappy Republicans will doubtless stay with McCain, both groups are teeming with centrist swing voters who will be targeted by both parties. The poll shows that McCain's appeal has grown since November by more than the Democrats' has dwindled. McCain gets about 10 percentage points more now than a generic Republican candidate got last fall; Obama and Clinton get about 5 points less than a nameless Democrat got then. Underlining McCain's burgeoning popularity, in November about four in 10 considered McCain likeable, decisive, strong and honest while about half do now. Obama is seen as more likeable and stronger now but his numbers for honesty and decisiveness have remained flat, while Clinton's scores for likeability and honesty have dropped slightly. "You can't trust Hillary and Obama's too young," said Pauline Holsinger, 60, a janitorial worker in Pensacola, Fla., now backing McCain who preferred an unnamed Democrat last fall. "I like him better, he's more knowledgeable about the war" in Iraq. Voters at this stage in a campaign commonly focus more on candidates' personal qualities. That usually changes as the general election approaches and they pay more attention to issues and partisan loyalty — meaning that McCain's prospects could fade at a time when the public is deeply unhappy with the war, the staggering economy and Bush. For now, more than one in 10 who weren't backing the unnamed Republican candidate in last November's survey are supporting McCain, a shift partly offset by a smaller number of former undecideds now embracing Obama or Clinton. Of those now backing McCain, about one-third did not support the generic GOP candidate last November. Among people who have moved toward McCain, about two-thirds are discontented Bush voters, with many calling themselves independents but leaning Republican. About half of this group say they are conservative, yet their views on issues are more moderate than many in the party, with some opposing the war in Iraq. They have favorable but not intensely enthusiastic views of McCain _ for example, two-thirds find him likeable while far fewer find him compassionate or refreshing. "He's known, he's a veteran," said David Tucker, a retired Air Force technician from Alexandria, La., and Bush voter who was undecided last November but has ruled out Obama and Clinton. "I understand him better." Around a third of the voters newly supporting McCain lean Democratic and mostly backed Democrat John Kerry in 2004. They are moderates who disapprove of Bush and the war in Iraq, but find McCain likeable, much more so than they did last November. Many McCain-backing Democrats express one consistent concern about McCain — his age. "Let's face it, we're not getting any younger," said retired accountant Sheldon Rothman of Queens, N.Y., who like McCain is 71. "There are too many imponderables when you get to that age, especially with the stress of the presidency." Whether those now switching to McCain will stay that way once the Democrats choose a candidate is what the fall campaign will be about. "McCain has a history of doing well with independent voters," said GOP pollster David Winston. He said voters' preference for an unnamed Democratic candidate but McCain's strong performance against Obama and Clinton means "Democrats have an advantage their candidates are not taking advantage of." Democratic pollster Alan Secrest said the contrasting numbers mean that while the voters' overall mood favors Democrats, they are still taking the measure of Clinton and Obama. "The Democrats will have to earn their way this fall," he said. The AP-Yahoo survey of 1,844 adults was conducted from April 2-14 and had an overall margin of sampling error of plus or minus 2.3 percentage points. Included were interviews with 863 Democrats, for whom the margin of sampling error was plus or minus 3.3 points, and 668 Republicans, with a margin of sampling error of plus or minus 3.8 points. The poll was conducted over the Internet by Knowledge Networks, which initially contacted people using traditional telephone polling methods and followed with online interviews. People chosen for the study who had no Internet access were given it for free. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Continuing Battle Divides Democrats Leaders to Seek End After Primaries to Avoid Further Damage VIDE By Dan Balz and Perry Bacon Jr. Washington Post Staff Writers Thursday, April 24, 2008; Page A01 Democratic leaders resigned themselves yesterday to a prolonged and potentially damaging battle between Sens. Hillary Rodham Clinton and Barack Obama for their party's presidential nomination, but said they will push for a quick conclusion to the warfare once the primaries end in early June. Clinton's victory in Pennsylvania on Tuesday stilled talk that she should consider quitting the race before the end of the primaries because of Obama's significant advantage in pledged delegates. But party leaders were split about the potential consequences of six more weeks of tough campaigning. "What happened yesterday was what a lot of us were afraid would happen," Tennessee Gov. Phil Bredesen said. "There is no clear resolution. She did a little better than expected, but they're still standing there, slugging it out. Everybody's getting bloody and there's no knockouts. It helps prolong that." Party leaders expressed concern that, as Clinton and Obama continue to focus on each other, Sen. John McCain (Ariz.), the presumed Republican nominee, is getting a free ride as he reintroduces himself around the country and begins laying out his platform for the general election. But Democratic National Committee Chairman Howard Dean said he is "less concerned than a lot of Democrats" about the consequences of the nominating contest, noting that the primaries are drawing hundreds of thousands of new voters to the party rolls and that in 60 days, that will be more important than the combat between Clinton and Obama. Dean echoed the view that Clinton's 10-percentage-point victory in Pennsylvania, which matched her victory margin in Ohio last month, earned her the right to press ahead with her underdog candidacy. "I think she certainly has a lot to be proud of," he said. "I wouldn't think anybody would drop out at this point, nor have I ever suggested anyone should." Rep. Brad Miller (N.C.), an uncommitted superdelegate, agreed. "I'm not going to tell her to drop out," he said. "I wouldn't tell someone that just won a major primary by 10 points to drop out." But Dean also reiterated his call for uncommitted superdelegates to move quickly once the primaries are over to declare their allegiance and end the Clinton-Obama contest before it damages the party's chance of winning the White House in November. "We'd like to know who the nominee is by the end of June," he said. Bredesen, who had proposed that superdelegates convene in June to express their preferences, said party leaders have an obligation to force some kind of action in June. "The time is coming when the Democratic Party steps up and exercises leadership to resolve this issue," he said. But he added pointedly, "I just don't think hope can be the entire strategy." Tuesday's results, while not unexpected, set off another intraparty debate over the state of the race. Strategist Tad Devine, who played top roles in the past two Democratic presidential campaigns, called Clinton's Pennsylvania victory "impressive" and added, "I never thought it was over, but now I think she has more of a chance than she did two weeks ago." Rep. Artur Davis (Ala.), an Obama supporter, echoed the Obama campaign's analysis of the impact of Pennsylvania. "I don't think the race has fundamentally changed," he said. "He still has a notable lead in delegates, the popular vote, national polling and the money race." The Clinton campaign disputed who leads in the popular vote, noting that if the unsanctioned primaries in Michigan and Florida were included, Clinton would have edged ahead in popular votes. But Obama loyalists accuse her of playing loose with the facts, noting that Obama had taken his name off the ballot in Michigan and that neither candidate ran a real campaign in Florida. Obama supporters stopped short of calling on Clinton to quit the race, but warned against campaign tactics that leave the party weaker and made it clear that they think she has little chance of winning the nomination. "That is such an intensely personal decision that it is something she needs to decide," Arizona Gov. Janet Napolitano said when asked whether she would now urge the New York senator to get out. "I do hope that, as they keep campaigning, that everybody realizes that at the end it's not only for the nomination, it's for the presidency. Everything that is being said and done now is going to be fodder for the fall, and we need to keep our eye on the White House." Asked whether Obama was being hurt by the continuation of the race, she replied, "I think he's not being helped." But Wisconsin Gov. Jim Doyle, another Obama supporter, said the negativity of the contest may strengthen the senator from Illinois if he is the party's nominee. "It's probably good to have this negative stuff coming at him now, because he probably was going to get it in the fall," Doyle said. He added, "It would be better for him to move on and get focused on Senator McCain, but this process is probably helpful to him." Kansas Gov. Kathleen Sebelius, who also backs Obama, said Clinton's timetable "is up to her," but added that she hopes to see a nominee crowned sooner rather than later. "I do think that this [Obama's nomination] is inevitable, that the last best chance [for Clinton] to close the pledged delegate gap was in Pennsylvania and that wasn't done." But Pennsylvania Gov. Edward G. Rendell, a key Clinton supporter, argued that nothing is inevitable at this point, given that Obama cannot obtain a majority of delegates without the help of uncommitted superdelegates. "It's clear that Senator Clinton is the best standard-bearer for us in the fall, and superdelegates need to take a deep breath and think about that," he told reporters. Don Fowler, a former DNC chairman and a Clinton supporter, dismissed suggestions that Democratic superdelegates are worried about the potential damage of a prolonged nomination battle. "I don't call 15 superdelegates every day and talk to them, but the ones I know are quite content to let things drift along," he said. "The people who are truly undecided, they're just waiting to get a signal." Fowler, however, said Clinton needs a strong performance on May 6 to keep her hopes alive. "She has to win Indiana and has to at least come very close in North Carolina," he said. Former congressman Harold E. Ford Jr. (Tenn.), who chairs the centrist Democratic Leadership Council, said he thinks that, after Pennsylvania, the onus will be on Obama to bounce back. "He's got to win Indiana now," said Ford, who has not endorsed a candidate. "He's got to quiet those who believe he has problems winning over blue-collar voters. I don't believe that is actually real . . . but in this business, perception late in the game is very important. So he's got to perform well in Indiana." Obama said yesterday that he has gained ground among white, working-class voters in Pennsylvania since the March 4 Ohio primary. But exit polls dispute that. He lost white voters without college degrees by 44 points in Ohio and 40 points in Pennsylvania. He also lost ground with another important constituency, white Roman Catholics, who are a sizable bloc in many of the industrial states in the East and Midwest. He lost them by 31 points in Ohio and 44 points in Pennsylvania. Obama picked up the support of two Democratic superdelegates yesterday, while Clinton gained one more. Overall, he leads the delegate race with 1,723 to her 1,592, according to the Associated Press. Clinton leads among superdelegates 259 to 235, a ratio that has been steadily shrinking over the past six weeks. -------------------------------------------------------------------------- Party Fears Racial Divide Attacks Could Do Lasting Harm, Democrats Say By Jonathan Weisman and Matthew Mosk Washington Post Staff Writers Saturday, April 26, 2008; Page A01 The protracted and increasingly acrimonious fight for the Democratic presidential nomination is unnerving core constituencies -- African Americans and wealthy liberals -- who are becoming convinced that the party could suffer irreversible harm if Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton maintains her sharp line of attack against Sen. Barack Obama. Clinton's solid win in the Pennsylvania primary exposed a quandary for the party. Her backers may be convinced that only she can win the white, working-class voters that the Democratic nominee will need in the general election, but many African American leaders say a Clinton nomination -- handed to her by superdelegates -- would result in a disastrous breach with black voters. "If this party is perceived by people as having gone into a back room somewhere and brokered a nominee, that would not be good for our party," House Majority Whip James E. Clyburn (S.C.), the highest ranking African American in Congress, warned yesterday. "I'm telling you, if this continues on its current course, [the damage] is going to be irreparable." That fear, plus a more general sense that Clinton's only route to victory would be through tearing down her opponent, has led even some black Democrats who are officially neutral in the race, such as Clyburn, to speak out. Clinton's camp has a vastly different interpretation, arguing that the most recent primary demonstrated that Democrats remain very interested in seeing the contest continue. "Pennsylvania did the job of calming any nerves that existed," said Clinton campaign spokesman Jay Carson. "It showed that the big states around the country think she's the best person to be president." But that opinion is far from unanimous. More than 70 top Clinton donors wrote their first checks to Obama in March, campaign records show. Clinton's lead among superdelegates, a collection of almost 800 party leaders and elected officials, has slipped from 106 in December to 23 now, according to an Associated Press tally. "If you have any, any kind of loyalty to the Democratic Party, perhaps you need to rethink your strategy and bow out gracefully in order to save this party from a disastrous end in November," Rep. William Lacy Clay (Mo.), an African American Obama supporter, said in an appeal to Clinton. Clyburn accused Clinton and her husband yesterday of marginalizing black voters and opening a rift between her campaign and an African American Democratic base that strongly backed Bill Clinton's presidency. Some surrogates in her camp are trying to render Obama unelectable against the Republican nominee so she could run for the Democratic nomination in 2012, he suggested. The discussion flared up yet again when Bill Clinton suggested this week that Obama's campaign had played "the race card" after the former president compared the candidate to Jesse Jackson after the South Carolina primary. "We keep talking as if it doesn't matter, it doesn't matter that Obama gets 92 percent of the black vote, because since he only got 35 percent of the white vote, he's in trouble," Clyburn said. "Well, Hillary Clinton only got 8 percent of the black vote. . . . It's almost saying black people don't matter. The only thing that matters is how white people respond. And that's what bothered me. I think I matter." The reemergence of the Rev. Jeremiah A. Wright Jr., Obama's controversial former longtime pastor, in an appearance on PBS last night may only fan the dispute. "When something is taken like a sound bite for a political purpose and put constantly over and over again, looped in the face of the public, that's not a failure to communicate," Wright said in an appearance with Bill Moyers. "Those who are doing that are communicating exactly what they want to do, which is to paint me as some sort of fanatic or as the learned journalist from the New York Times called me, a 'wackadoodle.' " Both campaigns sought yesterday to tamp down a race controversy, appealing for Democrats to stay focused on winning back the White House. "I never believe in irreparable breaches. I'm a big believer in reconciliation and redemption," Obama told reporters in Indianapolis. "So, look, this has been a fierce contest. I've said repeatedly: Come August, there will be a whole lot of people standing on a stage with a lot of balloons and confetti raining down on the Democratic nominee, and people are going to be excited about taking on John McCain in November." Campaigning for Clinton in Gary, Ind., yesterday, Rep. Stephanie Tubbs Jones (Ohio), who is black, said she does not share her colleagues' concerns. "I don't think Bill and Hillary Clinton will 'do anything' to win this election," she said. "They are trying to be successful, but I disagree they will do anything or they are trying to hurt Barack Obama." She added that black voters "are not a monolith, and we recognize the importance of this election." There are signs that the anger voiced by some African Americans is beginning to extend to the Democratic donor base. Campaign finance records released this week show that a growing number of Clinton's early supporters migrated to Obama in March, after he achieved 11 straight victories. Of those who had previously made maximum contributions to Clinton, 73 wrote their first checks to Obama in March. The reverse was not true: Of those who had made large contributions to Obama last year, none wrote checks to Clinton in March. "I think she is destroying the Democratic Party," said New York lawyer Daniel Berger, who had backed Clinton with the maximum allowable donation of $2,300. "That there's no way for her to win this election except by destroying [Obama], I just don't like it. So in my own little way, I'm trying to send her a message." The message came in the form of a $2,300 contribution to Obama. Donors are not the only ones who have made the leap. Gabriel Guerra-Mondragón served as an ambassador to Chile during Bill Clinton's presidency, considered himself a close friend of Sen. Clinton, and became a "Hill-raiser" by bringing in about $500,000 for her presidential bid. But he had a fitful few weeks as the battle between Clinton and Obama turned increasingly negative. Last week, he decided he had seen enough. "We're just bleeding each other out," Guerra-Mondragón said when asked why he had decided to join Obama's finance committee. "Looking at it as coldly as I can, I just don't see how Senator Clinton can overcome Senator Obama with delegates and popular votes. I want this fight to be over -- the quicker, the better." The Obama converts include William Louis-Dreyfus. The billionaire New York financier said he had been impressed by Clinton's performance in the Senate and distressed by eight years of the Bush administration when he donated the maximum to her campaign last August. Then, he said, he began watching more closely. "However much one might have supported the Clintons, or one might support the usual suspects in the Democratic Party, I began to believe Obama represents a new approach. He gives off such a sense of relevance that he's sort of irresistible," Louis-Dreyfus said. He also expressed, as did other big givers who crossed to Obama, exasperation about the tone of the Clinton campaign and frustration with the candidate herself. "At the end of the day, all she had to do was open her mouth for me not to believe her," Louis-Dreyfus said. Staff writers Perry Bacon Jr., traveling with Clinton, and Alec MacGillis, traveling with Obama, contributed to this report. -------------------------------------------------------------- The Incredibly Shrinking Democrats By JOE KLEIN Thu Apr 24, 9:35 AM ET, TIME MAGAZINE "This election," Bill Clinton said in the hours before the Pennsylvania primary, "is too big to be small." It was a noble sentiment, succinctly stated, and the core of what Democrats believe - that George W. Bush has been a historic screwup as President, that there are huge issues to be confronted this year. But it was laughable as well. The Pennsylvania primary had been a six-week exercise in diminution, with both Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama - and Bill Clinton too - losing altitude and esteem on an almost daily basis. Even as he spoke, the former President was in the midst of a tiny, self-inflicted absurdity, having claimed in a radio interview that the Obama campaign had played the "race card" against him. And that was the least of the damage. Hillary Clinton won a convincing victory in Pennsylvania, but it came at a significant cost to the Clinton family's reputation and to the Democratic Party. She won by throwing the "kitchen sink" at Obama, as her campaign aides described it. Her campaign had been an assault on Obama's character flaws, real and imagined, rather than on matters of substance. Clinton also suffered a bizarre self-inflicted wound, having reimagined her peaceful landing at a Bosnian airstrip in 1996 as a battlefield scene complete with sniper fire. After six weeks of this, according to one poll, 60% of the American people considered her "untrustworthy," a Nixonian indictment. But that was nothing compared with the damage done to Obama, who entered the primary as a fresh breeze and left it stale, battered and embittered - still the mathematical favorite for the nomination but no longer the darling of his party. In the course of six weeks, the American people learned that he was a member of a church whose pastor gave angry, anti-American sermons, that he was "friendly" with an American terrorist who had bombed buildings during the Vietnam era, and that he seemed to look on the ceremonies of working-class life - bowling, hunting, churchgoing and the fervent consumption of greasy food - as his anthropologist mother might have, with a mixture of cool detachment and utter bemusement. All of which deepened the skepticism that Caucasians, especially those without a college degree, had about a young, inexperienced African-American guy with an Islamic-sounding name and a highfalutin fluency with language. And worse, it raised questions among the elders of the party about Obama's ability to hold on to crucial Rust Belt bastions like Pennsylvania, Michigan and New Jersey in the general election - and to add long-suffering Ohio to the Democratic column. Yes, yes, the bulk of the sludge was caricature, and some of it, especially the stuff circulating on the Internet, was scurrilous trash. But there is an immutable pedestrian reality to American politics: you have to get the social body language right if you want voters to consider the nobler reaches of your message. In his 1991 book, The Reasoning Voter, political scientist Samuel Popkin argued that most people make their choice on the basis of "low-information signaling" - that is, stupid things like whether you know how to roll a bowling ball or wear an American-flag pin. In the era of Republican dominance, the low-information signals were really low - how Michael Dukakis looked in a tanker's helmet, whether John Kerry's favorite sports were too precious (like wind-surfing), whether Al Gore's debate sighs over his opponent's simple obfuscations were patronizing. Bill Clinton was the lone Democratic master of low-information signaling - a love of McDonald's and other assorted big-gulp appetites gave him credibility that even trumped his evasion of military service. The audacity of the Obama campaign was the belief that in a time of trouble - as opposed to the peace and prosperity of the late 20th century - the low-information politics of the past could be tossed aside in favor of a high-minded, if deliberately vague, appeal to the nation's need to finally address some huge problems. But that assumption hit a wall in Pennsylvania. Specifically, it hit a wall at the debate staged by ABC News in Philadelphia - viewed by an audience of 10 million, including a disproportionate number of Pennsylvanians - that will go down in history for the relentless vulgarity of its questions, with the first 40 minutes focused exclusively on so-called character issues rather than policy. Obama was on the defensive from the start, but gradually the defensiveness morphed into bitter frustration. He kept his cool - a very presidential character trait - and allowed his disdain to show only when he was asked a question about his opponent's Bosnia gaffe. "Senator Clinton deserves the right to make some errors once in a while," he said. "What's important is to make sure that we don't get so obsessed with gaffes that we lose sight of the fact that this is a defining moment in our history." It is the transcendent irony of this campaign that Obama, who entered the race intent on getting past the "dorm fights of the '60s," has now become deeply entangled in them. Each of the ABC moderators' questions were about controversies that erupted in the '60s. The Rev. Jeremiah Wright's black-nationalist sermons had their roots in the black-power movement that corrupted Martin Luther King Jr.'s "beloved community." The sprouting of flag pins on the lapels of politicians was a response to the flag-burning of antiwar protesters; the violence of Weather Underground members like William Ayers, with whom Obama was said to be "friendly," was a corruption of the peace movements as well. All of these occurred before Obama reached puberty - and they helped define the social atmosphere in academic communities like Chicago's Hyde Park, where Obama now lives. For 40 years, the Republican Party has feasted on the secular humanism, feminism, distrust of the military and permissiveness that caricature such communities. For 40 years, the Democratic Party has been burdened by its inability to break free of those stereotypes. Obama's challenge to the primacy of that sort of politics is both worthy and essential. His point, and Bill Clinton's, is indisputable: there is a need for a big election this year. A decision has to be made about the war in Iraq. The mortgage-market and the health-insurance systems are falling apart. There is a drastic need to wean ourselves off fossil fuels for national-security, environmental and basic supply-and-demand reasons. The physical and educational infrastructures of the country are badly outdated. In order to have an election about those big challenges, we need to shove some serious social issues - like gun control and, yes, even abortion - and phony character issues to the periphery. But Obama is going about it the wrong way. "After 14 long months," he said in his concession speech, "it's easy to get caught up in the distractions and the silliness and the tit for tat that consumes our politics, the bickering that none of us are immune to, and it trivializes the profound issues." What's wrong with that, you might ask? It's too abstract, too detached. Too often, Obama has seemed unwilling to get down in the muck and fight off the "distractions" that are crippling his campaign. Obviously, this is strategy - his appeal has been the promise of a politics of civility (and as a black man, he wants to send low-information signals that he is neither angry nor threatening). But what if, after ABC had enabled the smarmy American-flag-pin question from an "average citizen," Obama had taken o
238972	Arun	Rajagopal, M.D.	UT	Given the recent events among our two mortally weakened nominees, now is the time for you to step up. Please, Mr. Vice President, reconsider your decision not to run.
238973	David	Witt	OH
238974	Brian	Thaden	NE
238975	Pamela	Bean Ritter	CA
238976	Katherine	O'Neil	RI	We need you Al. They can't win. I was behind Hillary, to the point I was one of the people who felt betrayed if she didn't get the nomination. I now believe she is the same old news. Barack has always seemed an opportunist. I am so tired of the demorcratic party destroying its chances with in fighting. I think you're ore best hope. This time people will come out in great numbers for you. I want to see the people who run the party, to do the right thing and draft you at the convention. If not I will stay home in November regardless of who they nominate.
238977	Kim	Robbins	PA
238978	Charlie	Bergh	FL
238979	James	Sponzo	CA
238980	Carlyle	Schlabach	TX
238981	Jennifer	Morrison
238982	Sara	Brannon	TX
238983	Vince	Gallo
238984	Don	Bergman	WA	This will be the only way the democrats will return to the presidency. A Gore/Obama ticket can win.
238985	Thomas	Brown	MA	The other candidates have done harm to themselves. We need a someone who can win AND Add seats to congress and the Senate. AL GORE is That man!
238986	Dan	DeWolfe	CT	Rev. Wright has cooked Obama's goose. Hillary can't win and Obama is trying to run out the clock with his delegate lead. After the first vote at the convention everthing will be up for grabs. The campaign has been so divisive neither Clinton nor Obama can win. The Universe is giving you a second chance Al; go for it. But run this time as the person you revealed in "An Inconvenient Truth" and you will win easily and change the country and world for the better.
238987	Theresa	Ranieri	CA	He is our only hope now that the current democractic candidates are turning off the public.... Also, John Edwards would be the best Veep!!
238988	beverly	baroff	CA	Dear Mr. Gore You are the only one who can not only unite our party, and win the this election. But are the right visionary to lead our planet out of crisis and towards a sustainable world. We need your leadership in this darkest hour. Beverly Baroff
238989	thomas	mccloskey	NJ
238990	Deanna	Taxter	WA	Please run with Obama!
238991	Jay	Silverstein	NY	Gore - Barama ticket. We won't lose!
238992	Judy	Batchelor	SC	Please help save our home...EARTH
238993	Francine	Moshkovski
238994	Jennifer	Pattison	VA	Al - The Presidency has always been in your future and NOW IS THE TIME! If you step in now, most of the country will be relieved and YOU WILL WIN!
238995	Ingrid	Levene		America is waiting for you, Sir! With Senator Obama at your side, you could change the world!
238996	Dror	Moshkovski	NY
238997	jessie	curl	KY
238998	Jason	Bronk	MN	Please accept a draft as it would duty demands it.
238999	James	Bronk	MN	Please accept a draft as it would duty demands it.
239000	Karen	Bronk	MN	Please accept a draft as it would duty demands it.