Mr Al Gore's aides like to say he is well known but not known well by the United States electorate. Accordingly he should have made a definite and necessary transition from the one to the other condition during this week's Democratic convention in Los Angeles, given that he lags behind Mr George W Bush in the opinion polls. His speech was strongest on the specific commitments to welfare, education, equality and prosperity he has made his own, promising to build on the Clinton record of the last eight years. But it was dogged by the decision leaked just as he was about to speak about a new grand jury investigation into President Clinton's legal culpability in the Monica Lewinski affair.
Mr Gore successfully projected his own image, and managed to be self-deprecating about his reputation as a wooden, boring speaker. He consolidated the classic coalition of blue collar, trade union, liberal intelligentsia and Afro-American interest groups which provides much of the Democratic Party's armoury. But he certainly needs to extend his appeal to suburban floating voters if he is to overtake the lead established by Mr Bush in campaigning across many of the most important states. At the convention there was a determined effort to display the real Gore to voters, as old friends and family members told their stories about him.
Whether this is a sustainable strategy for the remaining grueling stages of the campaign very much remains to be seen. As this newspaper's Washington Correspondent points out in these pages today, "the truth is that the American people have seen huge doses of Al Gore and he does not turn them on". Many do not like or trust him. Thus the distinction drawn by his aides will not necessarily make the difference they hope. There is a manufactured quality about Mr Gore that can put people off. Such perceptions of personality and capability matter in presidential campaigns. So far they have benefitted Mr Bush, who has a more engaging persona and appeals to many floating voters who are not too worried that he is a less experienced or qualified politician than Mr Gore. They believe Mr Bush when he says his team of experts and advisers will carry him through to make the necessary decisions.
In these circumstances Mr Gore was right to say in his speech that politics is not only a popularity contest but a field in which difficult decisions have to be made for the greater good by political leaders. His stress on continuing the sound economic management responsible for the unprecedented growth and prosperity of the Clinton years and distributing its fruits fairly is a shrewd appeal to interests rather than imagery. His stress on "working Americans" elicited Republican accusations of class warfare, but will usefully remind voters of real policy differences between the two candidates. Mr Gore's strong grasp of policy issues will show in coming months, particularly, perhaps, in the television debates with Mr Bush. Mr Gore has both to affirm the achievements of the Clinton years and distance himself from them. He may well be helped in this difficult task by the crudely-timed leak of the grand jury investigation just before his speech. It recalls the Republican Party's obsession with Mr Clinton's integrity, which rebounded on them during the unsuccessful attempt to impeach him two years ago. If he is to succeed Mr Gore will need to remind voters that they know that strand of the Republican record all too well.