Devine in many ways embodies the liberal-moderate friction that this week's Democratic National Convention has occasionally shown, having worked on the re-election races of notables from the party's left wing -- Massachusetts Sens. John Kerry and Ted Kennedy and Maryland Sen. Barbara Mikulski -- as well as conservative or "New "Democrats like North Carolina Sen. John Edwards, former Texas Sen. Lloyd Bentsen's 1988 vice presidential race and Nebraska Sen. Bob Kerrey's ill-fated 1992 presidential foray.

Devine, 45 and from Providence, R.I., also worked on races for Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak and Colombian president Andreas Pastrana. But other than those brief international gigs, he is a long-time Democratic pol with an expertise in convention minutia, serving as the director of floor delegates for Gov. Mike Dukakis at the 1988 Democratic National Convention, deputy director of delegates for Walter Mondale in 1984, and his first job in politics came as a delegate tracker for then-President Jimmy Carter in 1980.

Salon caught up with Devine Thursday morning to hear what he thought Gore would say in his speech before the convention, and where he thinks the presidential race is headed.

What are we going to see tonight?

We're going to see him talk about himself, and his own life, and the things that have shaped him and his values. He's also going to make his case on issues -- he isn't going to shy away from issues. He'll explain why he supports certain policies. Bush alluded to a prescription drug benefit for people in need, but Gore will go out and explain why he's taken that stand, and what he will do to advance the cause. Voters want to understand plans and proposals, and he's looking forward to making that case.

But every time Vice President Gore or your campaign tries to spell out policy differences between your campaign and Gov. Bush's, he accuses Gore of waging a negative campaign, and being an attack politician. And that may be smart politics, since it hinders you guys from explaining the policy differences between your campaigns, which you need to do in order to win. So how do you spell out issue differences without falling into this Bush trap?

Well, I don't think Bush's convention speech was smart politics. His speech crossed the line; it was way too nasty, and it was a personal attack. And Gore's not going to do that at all. He's going to make his case on the issues alone. The latitude on that with voters is very wide. But their willingness to listen to personal attacks is very narrow. Our research indicated -- and this was backed up by others, like in that Washington Post focus group in Washington state -- that undecided swing voters left asking more questions about Bush than were answered. There didn't seem to be any "there" there for him, at least for them.

In his convention speeches in 1992 and 1996, Gore attempted to share a little bit about himself, telling stories about his son's car accident and his sister's death from lung cancer. And the speeches backfired; a lot of people thought Gore was exploiting his family's tragedy for political gain, and, of course, Gore said his sister's death led him to fight tobacco companies. When reporters checked out the claim, they learned that it wasn't until years after her death that he stopped growing tobacco on his Tennessee farm, and stopped taking political action committee checks from tobacco companies. How can he avoid that tonight while sharing stories about himself? Is this something you guys are being cautious about?

Frankly, I disagree with the assessment that everything he did in the conventions in 1992 and 1996 backfired. I mean, they won. And there was criticism of Gore in some circles, but Gore did well with voters. It wasn't until he started running for president that people started going after him. So as for the speeches he gave at the conventions "backfiring," there's no evidence of that in any polling I saw. So I disagree with the premise of the question.

In terms of telling stories, this time he's going to tell about himself. We've found that when this information is presented to voters, it's as if it's a revelation. They don't know a lot of facts about his life.

So just the fact that he'll be able to talk about his life and in some detail about policies and proposals, the speech will be a contrast with Bush. The presentation in Philadelphia was "Here I am, born the nominee of the party, driving around my ranch in a pickup with a dog." I think the reason they chose not to talk about Bush's biography or his record in Texas is that they recognize that those are vulnerabilities for their candidate. On the other hand , they're the strengths of our candidate. So Bush chose to take another course, and that didn't give anything for anyone to hang on to once the back and forth -- as inevitably happens -- comes.

There are a lot of naysayers out there who just don't think Gore will be able to pull off an election victory. It seems like he's had some problems finding his campaign's way since defeating Bill Bradley. As someone who was on the outside looking in just a few months ago, and who's now on the inside, what's your take on the campaign so far?

Well, obviously I think we're going to win the election. We're on the right track to do that, and the convention is a very important part of the story in which we begin to tell the voters about Al Gore, who's had a remarkable life and record. We're well positioned in the election, and I'm looking at the electoral terrain. On the fundamental issues of prosperity, keeping the economy going in the right direction, we're well positioned. On health care, the other side has nothing, while we've got a plan. On issue after issue, Gore is in the right place and Bush is in the wrong place.

You know, records are important to voters. And the Bush record in Texas is a huge problem for him, especially with the environment and health care. I mean, I can understand the skepticism -- a lot of the polls have supported Bush. But that support is thin.

How can you be so confident that it's thin? Of the hundreds of polls taken since both Bush and Gore clinched their respective party nominations, Gore has only lead in a few. On what do you base the assertion that Bush's support is thin?

If you look beneath the surface of the horse race into attributes and issues, and how voters feel about issues, Gore has tremendous strength. And that's the reason. People think Gore does better on issues. I think we're well situated. It's going to be a tight race, but Gore's going to win.

But even with some core Democratic groups, such as women voters, Gore's been behind Bush in the polls.

Well, we've already begun to break out from that, in the course on this convention. This is all simply a question of people getting to know him and getting to know his story, which they'll relate to very well. His commitment to family, for instance. They'll get to know his record, and they'll get to know Bush's record, and I expect Gore will win the vast majority of women, which again will be the dominant group and will determine this election -- particularly working women, who are the swing voters.

I don't think it's a surprise that working women haven't paid tremendous attention to this campaign. They're working during the day, and they're coming home at night and working as well. And the election's still a couple months away. But everything we see in polls or focus groups as our case is made shows that Gore will receive their support. And I think we're making a good impression. Obviously tonight is a big night for Gore to make an impression.

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