New Hampshire's Defender

Political Players is a weekly conversation with the leaders, consultants, and activists who are shaping American politics. This week, CBS News' David Miller talks with New Hampshire Secretary of State Bill Gardner, who has the sole power to set the date of the crucial New Hampshire primary and has been an ardent defender of the primary's "first in the nation" status. This is an edited version of that conversation.

CBSNews.com: Do you feel the wind of history at your back when it comes to defending the first-in-the-nation status that your state has?

Bill Gardner: Oliver Wendell Holmes once said, "An ounce of history is worth a pound of logic." I can't imagine saying it any better than him.

CBSNews.com: At what point did the criticism of Iowa and New Hampshire become really harsh? Has it been that way for awhile?

Bill Gardner: It's been that way for awhile. In October of 1983, Nancy Pelosi was made the chair of a [Democratic National Committee] committee called the Compliance and Review committee. She asked to come out and see me one day because she found out that we weren't going to have the primary on the day the DNC said we had to have it, and she was responsible for making sure the states complied. So she came up and said that we had to do this. This time, for me, it was very similar to what I went through in 1983. I mean, every cycle's a little bit different.

CBSNews.com: What sort of system then would you advocate? What do you think is the ideal way of nominating our presidential candidates?

Bill Gardner: Well, we had a day in the spring of '96 where secretaries of state gathered. We'd never taken up this subject before because it was potentially too divisive and the association didn't want to have all the states fighting. At that point, there were a lot of op-ed pieces saying that it couldn't get any worse. But we thought '84 was bad and '88 was even worse. In '92 we didn't think it could get worse.

At that time everybody was saying that '96 was even worse. What we decided was that we would get a couple dozen people that were very knowledgeable involved for a long time in this process. We had campaign managers from both parties, campaign treasurers from both parties, campaign chairs, former chairs, reporters who have covered this process for a long time, and we asked them all to come in and we sat around and we got people from different campaigns so we would know what the treasurers go through, what the managers go through, and we listened for two days.

We said, "What would you do?" And that's when we came up with, eventually, over the next couple of years, protecting Iowa and New Hampshire but having a rotating regional primary. Now, there's a question whether that means during one month when all the states can go different days or whether they go the same day. It's not an easy question to answer because if it was, it would have been answered some time ago. But the Constitution is silent.

There have been over 100 bills introduced in the United States House and Senate in the 20th century, none of which passed because it's not easy, because when you pick some place, like this time when the DNC agreed that they would pick Nevada and South Carolina, they did it for a reason. [DNC Chairman Howard] Dean said Iowa and New Hampshire didn't represent the rest of the country and their value has to be diminished, and so we're going to pick a couple of states that, in their opinion, do.

Florida then says they not only have the population of minorities that the country has, but it has northerners and southerners. I mean, they were making the case for themselves, why they fit what Dean was trying to get. So they said, "Why shouldn't we do this when we're more diverse than Nevada and South Carolina combined?" For us it's a little different because we do have this tradition. We didn't ask for it, we weren't picked by anyone; the DNC didn't give this to us.

Why did it happen in New Hampshire? Why was New Hampshire the state to do this? For the same reason that New Hampshire was the state to have a primary when most states got rid of primaries: It's grassroots, personal participation. It's the culture here, politically, that is unique. The shortest distance between the people and the government exists in this state because so many people in this state are part of the government. California would have to have over 12,000 members of its House of Representatives to equal the kind of representation we just have in our House. It's a different political culture, much more personal and closer to the government.

A few primaries ago, I got a call from someone from CBS who said they wanted to come up and interview me for 60 Minutes, because they're doing a story on the end, the death of the New Hampshire primary. Because Steve Forbes was able to buy the state, and he was ahead in the polls and that showed the grassroots did not exist anymore. And I said, "If you want to do an interview that's up to you, but I would be very careful if that's your theme. Because right now, when someone spends the kind of money that he has spent on TV, and people are asked about him, they might say something favorable about him because he said something that made them feel good about him. But that does not mean that in the end they're going to vote for him."

But they did it, they produced it and, sure enough, just before it was going to air they had to throw it out because it was a story that was totally irrelevant at the time. So, every cycle there's something new, particularly with technology.

CBSNews.com: With a population that is so engaged in politics, partisanship aside, what personal qualities in a candidate do you think really appeal to New Hampshire voters?

Bill Gardner: Well, I think, ideally, a person wants to feel good about the character of the person. I think, in the end, that's what's important. You'll get questions about this issue or that issue but in the real New Hampshire setting, it's more character and asking questions about the person. That's why the candidates that can connect [win].

Like when Gary Hart ran [in 1984], John Glenn had the resume to be president. Bob Kerrey from Nebraska had the resume to be president. But they couldn't connect here with the voters beyond the resume. And so, it didn't work. But there are examples like that, and then there are some that do connect. The John McCain of recent times ran a classic campaign. He didn't have the most money but he went out and he spoke and he did his town meetings and stayed until the last person who had a question was able to ask a question.

CBSNews.com: The New Hampshire we see in the news is all about candidates going to diners or meetings at houses, hand-shaking retail politics. When you've got old-fashioned politics and retail politics, does the emergence of technology change any of that?

Bill Gardner: Well, in '68 you had the three networks and that was it. Technology has changed the primary to some extent like it's changed campaigning across the country. It went from the three networks to cable, where you expanded a little bit, and then it went to local TV stations. We've had half-a-dozen documentaries made about us: Sweden, Japan and Canada have come in. And then the computer in '96 started a little bit, and then in '99 you began having people use the computer for the 2000 primary. And then, in 2004, Dean, taking advantage of being able to connect in a small state and in the polls, was able to show that he had a chance, and he was able to raise a lot of money through the Internet because he had a chance.

The primary here is sort of participated in vicariously by people in other states now because it can be brought into their living rooms. Although they're not personally a part of it, they're a part of it, because of technology, in a way that they weren't before. It's like it's in the backyard, and the internet just adds another dimension to that. The internet does bring in a new dimension that brings in people from a distance, a little closer to feeling connected to it like television did in the '60s. That's when states began asking, "Why can't we have the same thing?"

CBSNews.com: Do you think, with all these states rushing to hold their primaries on February 5th, that this cycle might be the breaking point where after this election's over we might step back and say we need to figure something else out to prevent this leapfrogging from happening the next time around, or do you think this is just going to go on and on?

Bill Gardner: Well, that same question was asked after the '80s and in the '90s and the answer is, "Well, how can you not say the answer is 'yes?'" But what happens is, once the nominees are decided, the whole environment changes. And so, from this perspective now, knowing the time we're in right now, you can answer that question in the affirmative. But if you were to superimpose what it's like after it's over and whoever wins saying "Well, it's not so bad," it changes, and that's where the history comes in.

CBSNews.com: You have the power to set the date of the primary. You haven't set it yet. What factors are you considering in terms of what date you will end up picking?

Bill Gardner: Well, first and foremost, it's going be a day that preserves the tradition and that's it.

CBSNews.com: Does anybody from the national parties and the campaigns contact you at all? Do they try to make subtle suggestions as to what date you should do?

Bill Gardner: Nancy Pelosi came here to my office with a few lawyers two dozen years ago, pretty strongly suggesting what the result would be if I didn't do what they wanted. I had a situation in '99 when I had both political parties and the governor in this state suggest that the date should be changed.

CBSNews.com: What is it that's enabled you to resist pressure from all these people?

Bill Gardner: Well, it's a unique position. As I've said, I use my best judgment and someday it might not be the right one. So far, I've had some luck and it has been. I sat in a meeting in the governor's office with the governor and both political party chairs and the national committeemen all unanimously saying that I should change the date that I had set the week before. And I listened one-by-one and, based on the conversations I had and what I believed would happen in certain states, I had to make a call.

After they all spoke, and they told me that they were more in tune with what was happening, and I said, "Once I've set the date I've never changed it. It's not that that's an absolute but I've done it the same way I've always done it there's a reason why I've done it this way this time… If I go along with you, and I make this change and you turn out to be wrong, I'm going to live the rest of my life knowing that I didn't have the guts to stand up for what I thought. And if we lose this primary because I didn't have the guts to do what was right, I'm going to feel terrible."

So when I walked from the governor's office back to my office, that was the toughest because it was the height of arrogance to defy everybody, in a way. It was public, so everyone knew that I was not doing what I was asked, and it turned out that I was right. So, because that was so public, it sort of increased my stature a bit, that I did this and I explained why. There was actually an attempt to have the legislature come in to take the authority away from me. But the legislature said, "No."

You've got to be true to yourself and I'm here to do the job that I feel is right, and there's an advantage to never having had a fundraiser [like I have]. There's a huge benefit to be in a position where you can do it your way.

CBSNews.com: What's the nature of the agreement between New Hampshire and Iowa, as far as protecting your state's primary and their first-in-the-nation caucus?

Bill Gardner: The talk of New Hampshire going ahead of Iowa was not what everybody thought it meant. It was simply that Iowa had been told to go on the 14th [of January]. We intend to honor the Iowa law as we intend to honor our law, and the Iowa law is that Iowa will be at least eight days ahead of any other state that has a caucus, primary, convention or any other kind of nominating event. That's the Iowa law. So we'll wait and we'll comply with this law.
By David Miller