Should Sen. Barack Obama be worried about voters like George Mowad?

Standing by a gas pump at a BP Station in Squirrel Hill earlier this week, Mr. Mowad squinted at the meter's numbers as they spun into the $40 zone -- with no end in sight -- and shook his head.

"I like [Sen.] John McCain, but I'm open to Obama," said the 52-year-old Forest Hills resident, a registered Republican. "He seems charismatic -- a nice guy. I could see myself voting for him. But not if he doesn't do something about finding more oil, even if it means drilling off our coasts or in Alaska. Energy is the main issue for me."

As the general election season approaches, independent voters like Mr. Mowad may present a real problem for Mr. Obama -- and an opportunity for his Republican opponent, Mr. McCain.

They may like the Democrat's message of change, but they also like affordable gasoline, and with Mr. McCain's call to end the 1981 moratorium on drilling off the U.S. coastline -- which Mr. Obama opposes -- pollsters and political strategists believe the GOP may have found a potent "wedge" issue for the fall campaign.

"Everywhere Sen. McCain travels, voters are telling him they are fed up with gas prices," noted Paul Lindsay, a spokesman for the Arizona senator's campaign. On Friday, crude prices reached another record high.

Mr. Obama's campaign did not return a request for comment, but other experts believe that if gas prices continue to soar, Mr. Obama needs to move aggressively with proposals that will provide relief at the pump or he'll lose crucial undecideds, independents and moderate Republicans in swing states like Pennsylvania.

Beyond being a pocketbook issue, the offshore drilling debate gives the GOP a chance to sharpen the ideological and cultural differences between the candidates -- this time on the environment.

Republicans are "asking voters who have heard for the past two decades that drilling presents an environmental danger to take a different view, now that they're faced with $4-plus gasoline, because economics trumps the environment," said Terry Madonna, director of the Center for Politics and Public Affairs at Franklin and Marshall College in Lancaster.

Ultimately, the candidate who wins on this issue will be the one who can make the best case for "a quality, sensible program that relies on increasing capacity while looking at alternatives. That's the kind of program that voters will buy into."

"The voters want all of it," added Michael McKenna, a Washington, D.C.-based pollster who focuses on energy issues. "They have yet to hear an idea they hate: they want conservation, they want to invest in renewables, they want offshore drilling where appropriate, they want liquefied coal if it's done in an environmentally safe way. They're telling us they want balance -- and if the Democrats don't hear that message, they will be in a tough spot."

A recent survey by independent pollster John Zogby found that 75 percent of undecided voters support offshore drilling; a Gallup Poll found independents favoring it by 56 percent to 43 percent. Overall public support for domestic exploration is probably even more than that, adds Republican strategist Kevin Madden.

"It's become an 80/20 issue almost overnight," he said, arguing that the continued resistance by Democrats to offshore drilling is "lazy thinking on their part. Democrats are adhering to the gravitational pull of ideology, but voters aren't looking at it from that point."

Opponents of offshore drilling insist it's all how polling questions are worded.

"These pollsters are making the assertion that drilling equals significantly lower gasoline prices, which just isn't the case, and even Republicans admit that," said Tony Massaro, political director for the League of Conservation Voters, who noted that Mr. Obama beat Mr. McCain by 19 points in a mid-June Gallup poll that asked who was better equipped to handle energy issues.

"The particulars of offshore drilling aren't hurting Obama," Mr. Massaro said. "When it comes to overall energy policy, I don't think the voters are looking at things blindly. To some degree they're able to discern what is good policy and what isn't."

He may have a point. Local voters of both political parties buttonholed at gas stations last week noted that offshore drilling would take years to have an impact and that the impact would be minimal, at best.

"It's a ludicrous idea, even if we eventually do see benefits," said Ella Gluckman, 23, of Point Breeze, who supports Mr. Obama and the Democratic party's emphasis on reducing consumption. "Do I want to ruin our environment for six months worth of oil? No way."

"It's not going to lower gas prices by much," added Bob Plocki, 48, of Harrison Township, "and we'd have to wait 20 years for it. Both sides are dishing propaganda, but I think Obama had better start listening to the people and come up with solutions or he doesn't stand a chance."

Sensing an opening, the McCain campaign last week hammered away with a message to beleaguered motorists: He feels your pain. Television ads tagged Mr. Obama as the "Dr. No of Energy Security" for nixing proposals to offshore drilling, a gas tax holiday, the electric car and "clean, safe nuclear energy."

Still, even as they seize the momentum, Republicans have at times stepped on their own message. On Monday, after pushing for offshore drilling, Mr. McCain acknowledged no immediate relief would be forthcoming -- rather, "the fact that we are exploiting those reserves would have psychological impact that I think is beneficial."

That, argues Mr. Massaro, undercuts the GOP's argument. "Voters realize the energy issue isn't fought on one front. Drilling is a piece of it, but how one treats oil companies is a piece of it too," he said.

"Mr. McCain is pushing for $3.8 billion in new tax breaks for the oil industry and voters are going to pay attention to that," he said. "And they will see that John McCain equals increased tax cuts for Big Oil."

Nonsense, countered Mr. McKenna.

"I've conducted 14 focus groups on energy in the past three months and in none of them has anyone volunteered that the problem is speculation," he said.

It's not that Big Oil can't be an effective club for the Democrats at some point, he added, "but right now the political ground isn't fertile for that sales pitch. Instead, we're hearing, 'Dude, if the Chinese think it's important to drill off Florida, why don't we?' "

There are other obstacles ahead for Mr. McCain as he navigates this issue, Mr. McKenna said. The voters who are most agitated "are in the middle and lower middle classes who are not totally sold on the Republican candidate. Plus McCain and Obama are pretty much on the same page about climate change, so he's somewhat restrained by that."

"If [McCain] wakes up every morning and says, 'If I'm President, here's what I'm going to do about gas prices, and what is Sen. Obama going to do?' he'll make some headway."

Still, he argues, it's unlikely that anything less than massive increases in gasoline prices will trigger widespread shifts in voter allegiances -- at least among those who have already decided whom they support.

"Gas is going to go up no matter whether we drill offshore or not," said Sarah Leimkuehler, 30, of the South Side, who was filling up her 1997 Oldsmobile's tank at a GetGo station in Homestead last week.

A McCain supporter, she declared that other issues matter more to her, "like health insurance, given that I come from a family of small business owners."

"There are things more important than driving a car," added Aubrey Garber, 25, who must commute every day from her apartment in the South Side to a Green Tree restaurant, where she works as a waitress. It costs her $50 every time she fills her tank.

"I just lost my health insurance and frankly I'm more concerned about that," said Ms. Garber, an Obama supporter.

Then she shrugged.

"If gas goes up to eight dollars a gallon by December, which is what some of my friends are telling me, I'll just have to find a job on the South Side."