Campaigns are won or lost on the basis of comparisons. In 1988, Massachusetts Gov. Michael Dukakis, the Democratic nominee, wanted voters to compare his record as an administrator with that of George Bush; instead, the Bush campaign got voters to focus on which candidate was the more patriotic, the more experienced in foreign policy and least permissive toward crime. These were areas in which Bush enjoyed an advantage. Gore must do likewise this year. He enjoys a marginal advantage on social issues like abortion (if he can paint Bush as the candidate of the religious right), but his main effort has to be in two kinds of comparisons:

Economic populism: After the 1988 election, Bush's campaign manager, Lee Atwater, told a New Republic luncheon that if Dukakis had focused from the start on the populist themes that he introduced in the last week of campaign -- "I am on your side," "Main Street" vs. "easy street" -- he would have won the election. Atwater was right, and the conditions are even more propitious this year for a Democrat to wage a populist campaign against a Republican. Clinton has effectively countered the Reagan Republican case against Democratic populism -- that the benefits would only accrue to black welfare cheaters at the expense of the white middle class. (I am sorry to be so blunt, but this was the image that was conjured up.)

Voters once again trust Democrats to watch out for the average American and fear that Republicans will favor the rich. Gore has to ring this bell every chance he gets. He has to make the case that Bush's tax cuts and Social Security plan is being written by Wall Street; that his health plan would be dictated by HMOs and drug companies; that his environmental policy would reflect the priorities of Big Oil; and that his reluctance to embrace campaign finance reform is a result of commitments he has already made to the "special interests."

Many centrist Democrats hate this kind of class appeal, but if Gore can make it effectively, he'll inspire turnout among Democrats and win the key swing voters -- the middle-income Midwestern white males.

In making this kind of appeal, Gore has to avoid the temptation to propose expensive programs of his own that would eat up surplus. Most voters don't feel an urgent need for big, costly programs. I favor a comprehensive national health insurance program myself, and many voters do in the abstract, but I don't think Gore wants to get in a debate about how many trillions of the taxpayers' money it is going to cost. Gore wants to concentrate on the inadequacy and unfairness of Bush's proposals -- and the havoc they could wreak on the boom.

Leadership: During the New Hampshire primary debates, Arizona Sen. John McCain, a man of average height, nonetheless made George Bush look puny. He seemed to shrink before McCain. Gore has to make Bush look small. He has to contrast his own experience as a national leader with that of Bush, who has less national experience than any Republican candidate since oilman Alf Landon, the Republican nominee in 1936 who was trounced by Franklin Roosevelt. Gore has also to remind voters that he was serving in Vietnam while Bush was signing up with the National Guard. He has to insinuate that when faced with a difficult decision, Bush will not be able to figure out what to do on his own, but will have to ask Daddy and his friends.

Gore's principal opportunity to make this case will be during the debates. His temptation in debates will be to skewer Bush; but what he has to do instead is to avoid a brawl and make himself appear to be the adult on the stage, which in fact he is. Voters might think Bush is the nicer guy, but they have to wonder they should entrust the country to him.

U.S. Rep. Mark Sanford, R-S.C.

Point number one, I'd say, Pretend you're sincere. Apparently he's a pretty neat guy on a personal basis, honest and straightforward. But politically one of his Achilles' heels is that he's perceived to be a politician who will wear beige clothes because someone tells him to. He's got a perception problem, at least down South, of being a man for all seasons. I think people believe -- at least back home -- that if you try to please everybody you'll please nobody. And you really are a politician if you try to please anyone.

I'd say he's just got to go ahead and write off certain folks. Which Clinton did masterfully with Sister Souljah in 1992. He went out and said "I'm going to offend a piece of my constituency so I'll have the sincerity thing going." So whether it was contrived or not, it worked. I would say Gore needs a Sister Souljah-type experience to rid himself of this perception that he's a typical political hack trying to please everybody. He also needs to show himself to be, between him and Bush, the guy you'd rather go out and get a beer with. But it is rather late in the game.

Joe Conason, Salon columnist and author of "The Hunting of the President," with Gene Lyons

It's been said before and it will be said again before the week is over, but it bears repeating until this simple fact sinks in: To defeat Bush Republicanism, Al Gore must run a progressive populist campaign, and he should begin that campaign with his acceptance speech at this convention.

The vice president can distance himself personally from his old boss if he thinks that's wise, but he had better not forget what Bill Clinton has always known: Inspiring the party base always requires a convincing rendition of the old-time Democratic religion. That's why the delegates were so happy and relieved to hear from Jesse Jackson, Ted Kennedy and even Bill Bradley on Tuesday night.

By choosing Joe Lieberman as his running mate, Gore has already placated the suburban New Democrats and reasserted his own centrism. Now he has to give the party's progressive base -- understandably skeptical about this ticket -- sufficient cause to line up behind them the way Republicans have fallen in behind George W. Bush and Dick Cheney. If current polls are accurate, only around 75 percent of self-identified Democrats expect to vote for Gore, while 90 percent of Republicans are backing Bush; if Gore possessed the same solid partisan support as his opponent, the Bush lead would evaporate instantly.

The reasons behind this resistance among Democrats are complicated. A substantial number are anguished by Gore's free trade position. Some have surely been repelled by persistently negative (and often unfair) media portrayals of Gore. A few probably dislike Bill Clinton enough to take out their frustration on his vice president.

Many of the skeptics will be drawn back toward their party as they contemplate the prospect of another Bush presidency. But Gore cannot depend entirely on fear and loathing to put him in the Oval Office; and if he does, then he doesn't deserve to win. Nor can he present himself merely as a sober-minded, responsible (and utterly boring) fellow who will make sure those deficits don't balloon again. Americans want a president, not an accountant.

A Democrat needs to speak up about decency far too long deferred -- about achieving universal healthcare and quality public education and eradicating poverty in this wealthy nation. For the party base that he has to secure, that message will provide its own charisma.

U.S. Rep. Jennifer Dunn, R-Wash.

He needs to solidfy his base. He needs to stop all this stuff with Maxine Waters and Loretta Sanchez that are just distractions.

Salon News A Salon-eye view of the day's news, with investigative reports, analysis and interviews with newsmakers.