Former Gore Strategist On Dems, '08

Political Players is a weekly conversation with the leaders, consultants, and activists who are shaping American politics. This week, as about 50 former Al Gore fundraisers gathered in Washington to mark the 20th anniversary of his first run for the White House, CBS News' Brian Goldsmith talked with Gore's longtime political adviser Carter Eskew about Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, and whether his former boss might be persuaded to try for the presidency one more time.

CBSNews.com: Do you think this new primary calendar, which has led to many big states moving up their elections -- creating a so-called Super Duper Tuesday on February 5th -- makes Iowa and New Hampshire less important, or more important?

Carter Eskew: Well, as they say, great question. Here's what I think. It creates an opportunity for the second-tier candidates. In a sense, Iowa and New Hampshire could become critically important, and essentially will be the graveyard for whatever second tier candidates fail to break out.

And also obviously it can become a graveyard for the frontrunners, if they were to stumble in some way that we can't yet predict.

So for example, if John Edwards, who right now is predicted to essentially win Iowa, were to stumble badly -- even though he would be in the first tier of candidates -- he would, I think, be in a pretty difficult situation.

On the other hand, candidates with the resources of Mitt Romney, Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama and presumably Giuliani and McCain -- when he gets his fund raising in gear -- will have the ability to run a significant national style primary on February 5th.

The only other thing I would say looking ahead, while it is probably more likely that we have our nominees in February, there is also I think a greater possibility than ever than there will be a allocation of delegates such that two or three candidates on either side are reasonably close to each other.

And you will have a fight to the finish. While I think that is a less likely scenario than the knockout punch, I still think it's more like a 35-65 scenario.

CBSNews.com: So you think there's both a momentum test and a money test? In other words, you have to do well in the early states, but you also need to have the money to compete on that national primary day?

Carter Eskew: Absolutely. But still there's literally a problem processing the money fast enough. I mean, if Chris Dodd, for example, were to emerge in Iowa, it's a pretty Herculean task to put together the money fast enough so that you could get the television time and do all the logistical things you need to do to take advantage of that.

CBSNews.com: If you were chief strategist to one of the Democratic presidential campaigns today would you insist your candidate apologize for voting for the war, if he or she did? Or, would you advise standing firm?

Carter Eskew: I think at this point I would stand firm. I think the window for an apology is well past. So the short answer to your question is I think, from just a political tactical point, it's the right thing to stay with that decision. Now, one presumes there was an interesting discussion before that position was set in stone. But once it is, I think you've got to stick with it.

CBSNews.com: At this point in the 2000 cycle, Bill Bradley actually appeared stronger than he turned out to be. Do you think the pundits are overestimating the strength of some of the candidates now, and underestimating others? Who do you think is misunderstood?

Carter Eskew: Well, certainly the reference to Bradley is true. The fact of the matter is at this point [in the 2000 cycle] his campaign was a little better organized. I mean, he was raising a lot of money. He clearly had the beginnings of a message that would come to full bloom in the '04 cycle with Howard Dean. But, frankly, he more than anyone, forced a reorganization and a refocus in Gore's campaign that was ultimately to our benefit, and his detriment.

In terms of '08, I think people have got the field reasonably sussed out, with some exceptions.

I think McCain's stock was unrealistically low for a while. And I think Giuliani's was unrealistically high. And I think what you're now seeing is more of a settling in that. I think frankly Fred Thompson's stock is probably unlikely to go any higher, and likely to go lower once he gets in the contest.

CBSNews.com: The best day is often the day before you get in, right?

Carter Eskew: Well, it often is. On the Democratic side, I think there was a sense for a while that Obama was perhaps unstoppable. And that Hillary was not as strong.

I think if you look at the last couple of weeks, that's been to some extent reversed. It's not that Obama isn't still strong, but that Hillary's kind of had a good couple of weeks.

I think people legitimately look and say, you know, Edwards has got a good message. He's got a real shot in Iowa which could refocus the campaign on him for a period of time.

Hillary is a very, very well-oiled machine. And Obama is the candidate with excitement. And I think that's essentially a fairly accurate read of the race. And then, the rest of them, who knows? Maybe Bill Richardson. But I don't see as much misunderstanding of that race as I've seen on the Republican side. I think people made some serious misjudgments about McCain's strength early on, and Giuliani's strength early on.

CBSNews.com: Do you think we learned anything important from the first Democratic debate two weeks ago?

Carter Eskew: Oh, I have to say absolutely I think we learned really nothing from the debate. ... Now, I'm not surprised. I think no one is going to be taking any risks at this stage of the game. Debates are ultimately about differentiation, and why would you at this juncture of the race take the risk of differentiation, even if you could?

CBSNews.com: You alluded to this earlier, but how vulnerable do you think Hillary Clinton is to the Barack Obama challenge?

Carter Eskew: Well, I don't know. There is a very important strain in the Democratic Party that is a straight line. It's probably further back than I can remember, but it's sort of every year there is an Obama-like figure, who tends to appeal to more activist Democratic voters in the sense of being upper income, better educated —- candidates like Bill Bradley, Paul Tsongas, Howard Dean.

It's a significant part of the Democratic primary vote, but in some ways I don't really know how to describe it. It's not really anti-establishment as much as looking for something new, and something to believe in. In the past, the rank and file Democratic voters have always gone with the more I guess establishment, or secure candidate, as represented by Walter Mondale, and John Kerry, and Al Gore, and Hillary Clinton. It's hard for me to know whether Obama is fundamentally different.

I think the forces that exist in our country now suggest that his candidacy is a much more serious threat than some of those candidacies have been. But I think it's just not clear to me yet

The other thing I would tell you that I believe is, as a political professional, there is a tremendous premium on people who have been through the crucible of a very difficult political campaign. And, you know, Hillary Clinton has done that in a host of ways. Obama has not. And I think that that's going to be something that's worth watching.

I view him as very untested. I view her as a tremendous political warhorse. I mean, whatever you think of her, I think she's someone who has shown that she has tremendous political skill, and tremendous political endurance, which should not be underestimated in this exercise that they're going through right now.

CBSNews.com: On a somewhat less serious note, are you surprised at the seeming durability of the John Edwards' haircut story? Do you think it's doing serious damage to his campaign?

Carter Eskew: Well there was the New York Times piece and Fox News is playing it up. Look, John Edwards drives conservatives crazy. If I were an Edwards partisan, I would say it's because they realize the potency of his populist message.

I think the country is increasingly concerned about the income gap and the fairness gap that exists. And Edwards is tapping into that. So, I think it's an indication of how they want to stir that pot. The answer is I'm not surprised. Hypocrisy is one of the great plot lines in politics. But it has not yet reached the proportions of Christophe and holding Air Force One on the tarmac.

CBSNews.com: Do you have any sense about what it would take for Vice President Gore to enter the race?

Carter Eskew: You know, my sense of where he is is what he has said publicly, which is it's highly unlikely, but he's not making the Sherman statement. I would note that he is very personally engaged, and satisfied to a degree that I've never seen him in what he is doing now on the global environment, his work with his investment firm on renewable energy projects. I would say that as someone who's known him for 30 years, one of the indications that I have is that when you're with him, he's not -- you know, most politicians and political junkies spend at least 50 percent of every conversation catching up on political gossip.

And I don't hear that in his conversations. I just don't think it's something he's thinking much about. Does that mean that there are no circumstances whatsoever under which he would run? I certainly couldn't say that. And I think he hasn't said that either. But just in terms of to use a kind of vague term -- where his head is -- I do not think it's focused on getting in the Presidential race.

CBSNews.com: Do you think he's satisfied with the current field in terms of his most important issue, global warming?

Carter Eskew: That's hard to say. I think the candidates are addressing it in a way that is unprecedented. He's obviously more satisfied with some of them than others. But I don't know. I think he feels that it's something that bears watching, but that so far there has been a fair amount of discussion about the issue. But he's not someone who, having been a candidate himself, always sits around in judgment.

CBSNews.com: Last question: what do you consider the big technical difference between running a presidential campaign in 2000, when you last did it, and running one today?

Carter Eskew: Well, I think there are the technological trends that were nascent in 2000. I believe our campaign was the first to get Blackberries, and you might be interested to know that we got them on Election Day in 2000. Now, as you know, they came in handy.

And so, there's obviously acceleration there. Only near the end of campaign did we have computers that had T1 lines.

The web was already established as a source for news. It was how we got our news. But in terms of technical: the biggest single difference between 2000 and 2008 is the broadband —- and everything that's meant in terms of blogs and news sites and how it's affected the news cycle overall.

By Brian Goldsmith