Q: There are strong indications that you're in trouble in your upcoming bid for re-election. Does this have anything to do with your failure to carry South Dakota in '72?

A: Well, I think that's probably an interpretation that no longer fits the present situation. I would have agreed with you a year ago, right after the election, that we were in trouble. But I've worked very hard in serving the state and tried to give my close attention to my own constituents. And tried to rebuild any damage that was done by the concentration on the presidential campaign for the last couple of years. And I think we're in reasonably good shape in South Dakota now.

Q: Has there been significant rebuilding, regrouping of the Democratic party since the '72 election?

A: What there's been is a curious, painful re-examination of the [McGovern Commission] reforms. [which drafted new guidelines for selection of convention delegates, thereby increasing the number of women, minority and youth delegates.] I would say that most of the energy of the Democratic Party since the '72 election has centered on a struggle to re-examine and possibly rewrite the reforms. But if I read the recommendations that they finally agreed on correctly, what they said was that the '72 reforms were essentially right. I don't have any quarrels with what I assume--what I believe--to be the so-called compromise settlement. It seems to me to be basically a ratification of what we agreed on four years ago.

Democratic Politics

Q: So you don't see any drastic shift of the party back, say, to organized labor or some of the old party bosses?

A: No, I don't. I think that the reforms that were operating in '72 have been ratified now.

Q: How would you assess the strength of Southern Democrats--particularly Wallace--and how seriously should we take Senator Kennedy's visit to him on July 4 this year?

A: Well, there's no question Wallace is a significant factor, and he has a strong following all over the country. I found him to be the toughest competitor in several of the primaries. I don't see him ever winning the Democratic presidential nomination, but I think he is a force to be reckoned with.

Q: Well, do you think that the party will have to make some conservative stands in order to attract him and his followers back?

A: I'm not sure the word "conservative" is the way to describe Wallace. I've never thought, for example, that his consistent support for the war was a conservative position, I always thought the real radicals were the ones who plunged us into that war. I think this: that Wallace speaks for a lot of people who are unhappy with the so-called "establishment" and that some way is going to have to be found to convince those people that their interests lie with the Democratic Party and with its candidate without the necessity of a Wallace candidacy. It's very difficult to do. I don't think that the Democratic candidate can win by simply capitulating to Wallace. But neither is he going to win without finding some way to bring a good many of those Wallace supporters back into the party. Perhaps the way that's done is by demonstrating that their economic and social interests are best served by the Democratic Party. But it simply can't be done by a sellout to Wallace's view on all the issues that face the country. That would bring the Democratic party down to a deserved defeat.

Q: Do you see a leader emerging who can unite the party? Issues that can unite the party for 76?

A: Well, I'm not sure that at this point it's useful to even speculate on whom the candidate might be in '76. I think we'll have a better picture after the '74 elections are out of the way. I'm probably the last one that ought to be saying this in view of my own early efforts in '72, but I think it would be a good thing if we got back to concentrating on the congressional and gubernatorial elections in '74 and reserved judgment on '76 for a while.

McGovern in '76?

Q: Assuming you win re-election in '74, will we have you to kick around in '76?