The Democrats are split on what to do about the the National Convention. Just by a quick glance at the polls, it is easy to see that Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama have either been tied for the lead or have each held it at some point. The latest news story of each candidates blunder seems to sway who is leading that day. They are not far from each other in the delegate count, and it doesn’t look like either will secure the magic number of 2,024 needed for the Democratic nomination in August.

So, the question arises: do the Democrats let the mud-slinging and image bashing no holds bar campaign continue, or do they stop it now to save face for the General Election? Another question has also emerged, what about Al Gore?

Some have suggested Clinton should drop out, others have proposed the super-delegates decide who they are voting for by June so that the candidates can see where they stand and make a decision. No one side has agreed to any resolution, but the debate is heated in both directions.

Obama supporters and many higher-ups in the Democratic party have suggested that Clinton slowly scale down her campaign since she is behind in the delegate count, and let Obama walk in un-opposed to the Democratic National Convention. This method would prevent a split convention that could show weakness within the party and to the general public. The hopes of this side of the argument is that an un-opposed candidate at the Convention could unite the party and bring all voters together to discuss issues and the party platform rather than arguing over who the nominee will be. This would also avoid the super delegates being the primary deciders in choosing the nominee. However, a recent poll shows that 28% of Hillary’s supporters would vote for McCain if she dropped out of the race, so this option may not be beneficial to the Democratic Party.

Not surprisingly, the Clinton camp and supporters feel differently. With Pennsylvania and North Carolina’s primaries still to come, along with several others, there are enough delegates to keep the race going in a dead heat. It is the votes of the uncommitted super delegates that will sway the nomination. Howard Dean, chairman of the Democratic Party and 2004 Democratic presidential candidate does not want to show a divided party in August. He set an unofficial deadline of July 1 for the undecided super delegates to decide who they will choose for the nominee. With this in place, he is hoping all super delegates who have not yet pledged their support to a candidate will do so quickly, and with the primaries decided by July, will hopefully put an end to the campaigning with a decided nominee.

Then there is the issue with Florida and Michigan. Both states moved their primaries forward this year against the will of the Democratic Party. In punishment, the Party stripped both states of their delegates, thus making their primaries null and void. This is a touchy subject within the party that is to be resolved at the National Convention. However, some are calling for it to be resolved sooner, as a majority of the delegates from the states would go to Hillary if the primaries counted, thus making the race even tighter. Another issue is that in the General Election, the voters of Florida and Michigan could go easily to the Republicans, as the Democratic voters in the states would feel disenfranchised by the Democratic Party.

Per a recent poll, 62% of Democratic voters do not want anybody to drop out from the race. If either drops out, the losing side will feel the presidential nomination was stolen from them. So the problem arises: how do you show party unity to the general public via a unified convention without large portions of the Democratic party feeling they were robbed of their nominee or disenfranchised?

Another question facing the Democratic party is the possibility of a third candidate: Al Gore. While he has not officially announced a candidacy, the option has not been ruled out. He could potentially be a unifying candidate for the Democratic party, and with many still feeling he was “robbed” of the 2000 Presidential election, he could also be a cause for a large scale Get out the Vote effort of the Democratic party.