The Truman Test

Political Players is a weekly conversation with the leaders, consultants, and activists who are shaping American politics. This week, CBS News' Brian Goldsmith talks with former Democratic House Leader, and presidential candidate, Dick Gephardt about the 2008 campaign.

CBSNews.com: By almost every measure, the Democrats are more optimistic about their political fortunes than they have been in decades. Are there any pitfalls the party as a whole should be concerned about, to avoid overconfidence?

Dick Gephardt: Well, I think overconfidence is always a pitfall. I think politics and political opinions change very rapidly in the information-driven world we're in. I think getting overly confident is a horrible mistake at any time, no matter what the polls say. Because things can change on a dime.

The government is a public service business, and the people want what they want out of it. And when it's not producing it, they look for a different product.

CBSNews.com: Many analysts have argued that Democrats prospered these last couple of years as much by not being the Republicans as anything else. What policy ideas, outside of ending the war, do you think would help the Democrats in 2008?

Dick Gephardt: Well, I think the Democratic majority in Congress is working on the right issues. It's always harder than it looks to get something concrete done. But I think they're trying to do the right things. I think the 100 hour agenda the House Democrats had was very positive, and they got a lot of that done.

So political reform. Trying to do something about health care costs. The cost of prescription drugs is a very important issue. Trying to do something about immigration, education, energy and the environment. These are all critical domestic issues. As well as trying to bring the war in Iraq to an end, and get our soldiers out of there as fast as they can. I think, if they stay on that track, that'll be an attractive message to voters who go to the polls in 2008.

CBSNews.com: It struck me last week, looking at the 'Take Back America' conference, that both Nancy Pelosi and Hillary Clinton -- who are normally thought of as pretty progressive politicians -- were booed to some extent by the activists there. Do you think there's a risk of a divide opening up in the Democratic Party, between the establishment in Washington and activists elsewhere in the country?

Dick Gephardt: Well, I think you always have to beware of categorizing people. There's a whole set of gradations of opinion about war, and about security in the Democratic Party. And there will always be some who will be dissatisfied with what the leaders are trying to do because it won't be fast enough or far enough for them.

But there are also a lot of other people who tend to be on the more aggressive side on getting more done that will understand that you're constrained when you're leading the caucus in the House or the Senate of getting things done very quickly. So I'm not worried about a split.

I think the vast majority of Democrats believe and understand that people like Nancy and Hillary and others are trying their best to bring the war to a conclusion, and get our people out. But they have to do it in a real, political environment. And you can't just push a button and make things happen.

CBSNews.com: In his memoirs, the consultant Bob Shrum, who worked on your 1988 presidential campaign, wrote that John Kerry, after he lost, said that he thought he should have gone with his gut and picked you as his running mate, rather than John Edwards. Do you have any regrets about the way 2004 played out?

Dick Gephardt: I really don't. And I have a great relationship with John Kerry, and John Edwards, for that matter. I don't look back. I've never been one to look back on what might have been or what could have been. It really isn't relevant. I'm always looking in the windshield and not the rear view mirror.

And I'm quite pleased with what I'm doing and having the chance to be in the private sector. I think John Edwards was a good pick, and they came very close to winning. And there are a lot of other reasons, I think, that contributed to their failure to get over the finish line. But I don't really believe that was a major factor in the outcome.

CBSNews.com: And speaking of the private sector, two of your kids are now working for you, I see, at the Gephardt Group. What lessons do you think you could offer to other politicians about being successful in a political career, as well as maintaining a strong family life?

Dick Gephardt: Well, family is always the most important thing, so you've got to really pay attention to that. I always tried to do that in part because it's such a demanding career in terms of time.

But, like anything in life, if you make it a priority and try your best, you can do that. And it's a great thrill to have two of my three children working with me in our little Gephardt Group. I always hoped that I could, at the end of my career, work with my kids.

CBSNews.com: Back to the campaign, the changes in the primary calendar this year have sparked a lot of debate about the continuing importance of the traditional early states. Do you think Iowa and New Hampshire are now less vital to winning the nomination this cycle than big states on February 5th?

Dick Gephardt: That's a really hard question because we've never lived through a schedule like this. So it's really hard to predict. In a way it makes Iowa and New Hampshire more important because of momentum. But it may also make them a little bit less important.

And what I mean by that is this: that if you're only able to win in Iowa or New Hampshire, or do well in Iowa or New Hampshire -- but don't have the financial resources to then carry the campaign into 15 or 20 States very quickly then I'm not sure that having succeeded there is going to have the effect that it's had in the past.

And so, as usual, they make it a little tougher every four years for people to transit through this.

CBSNews.com: Are you surprised by the amount of money that's required this time?

Dick Gephardt: It's shocking. And I don't have any brilliant solutions for it. As long as the Supreme Court says that money equals speech, there's nothing you can do to change this in the end. You're always going to have an unlimited need for unlimited money.

But it does raise a new specter, and that is the ability of someone like Mayor Bloomberg who can spend his own money at a very high level to be able to credibly enter this race, and to be able to do well. That would be the case not only for somebody like him, but for any Republican or Democrat who could put $100 million, $200 million, $500 million dollars into the campaign. That would really be a game changer.

CBSNews.com: My last question is about Missouri. Missouri has voted for the winner in every presidential election except one, 1956, since 1904. So it's a pretty good barometer of where the country, as a whole, seems to be every election cycle. What do you think voters in Missouri want to hear from the next president of the United States?

Dick Gephardt: Well, Missouri is a bellweather state, and I think it is because the people have a common sense approach to politics and the issues. They're kind of dubious, or they're skeptical. They want to be convinced. The 'Show Me' tag is well put.

And they take a very human look at candidates. They want somebody, in the end, that they can like as a human being. And more importantly, someone they can trust to do the right things. They know that nobody is supernatural. They know that everybody is just a human being and puts on their shoes and socks like everybody else.

And I guess Harry Truman is the great example of the kind of public servant that they like, that they want to vote for. So that's kind of the test I think they'll be putting everybody through as we move through 2007, and 2008.

By Brian Goldsmith