Richard Gephardt probably bears more battle scars after 14 terms in Congress than any of the eight Democrats challenging him for the Democratic nomination.
Once a conservative Democrat, Mr. Gephardt underwent a political transformation after entering the U.S. House of Representatives in 1977.
Among his policy shifts, he reversed his opposition to abortion, as he adjusted his philosophies to be more in line with traditional positions of the Democratic party.
These changes often hurt Mr. Gephardt, opening him to criticism, from Democrats as well as Republicans, that he was at base level a "political opportunist."
In 1988, Mr. Gephardt joined a field of Democratic candidates competing for the party's presidential nomination. He did not do well, being labeled as "lacking passion" by political pundits and journalists and dropping out of the race although he had won a key early test in Iowa.
Aside from the historical fact that no serving member of the House of Representatives has been elected President since 1880, Mr. Gephardt has had to overcome perceptions of ineffectiveness in his role as a Democratic leader in Congress.
As House minority leader for eight years, and despite a steadily more forceful articulation of core Democratic positions, he is still blamed by some for the failure of Democrats to return to the majority.
Frustration over this, and his failure to achieve a larger goal of becoming speaker of the House, was evident as he stepped down as Democratic leader after mid-term elections in 2002 that saw Republicans win control of Congress and he formally handed over his House leadership to his successor, Nancy Pelosi.
"Dick Gephardt has led our party in the Congress with great intellect, with great dignity, and he has set a very high standard for us to work on behalf of the American people," Ms. Pelosi said.
"Nancy Pelosi will do a fabulous job," Dick Gephardt said. "She won this on her merit, and her leadership capability and I am confident that with her leadership we are going to win back the House in 2004."
But Mr. Gephardt's "career defining moment" was his decision late in 2002 to support a White House-backed resolution authorizing President Bush to use military force in Iraq.
With many Democrats opposing the resolution, Mr. Gephardt negotiated with the Bush administration and voted for it. He laid out his reasoning in a White House ceremony.
"In our view, Iraq's use and continuing development of weapons of mass destruction, combined with efforts of terrorists to acquire such weapons, pose a unique and dangerous threat to our national security," he said. "Many of us believe we need to deal with this threat, diplomatically if we can, militarily if we must. Every member of Congress must make their own decision on the level of threat posed by Iraq, and what to do to respond to that threat."
Mr. Gephardt said had helped negotiate key safeguards requiring President Bush to exhaust all diplomatic means and consult with Congress.
Yet, months later, he and other Democrats such as fellow presidential candidates Joseph Lieberman and John Kerry, faced tough questions about the decision to support military action in Iraq.
This apparently cost Mr. Gephardt support in the polls, as many Democrats supported former Vermont Governor Howard Dean, who made opposition to the war in Iraq a key part of his campaign.
In debates with other Democratic candidates, Congressman Gephardt escalated criticism of the president, calling Mr. Bush a "miserable failure."
"I said to President Bush in the Oval Office, a number of times early last year, that he had to get the U.N., he had to get NATO, he had to start the inspections, he had to weld together an alliance to do whatever needed to be done," he said. "He failed at that. We're now seven months into the event, or eight months, and he still hasn't gotten it done!"
The capture of Saddam Hussein in December may have eased some of the criticism directed at Mr. Gephardt and fellow Democratic candidates who supported U.S. military action in Iraq.
But Mr. Gephardt's presidential aspirations face a crucial early test of popularity in the earliest stages of the Democratic nominating process.
Political analysts say he needs to prevail in the first of these in the Iowa "caucuses." If he does not win there, as he did in 1988, his campaign may have suffered a fatal blow, although strategy calls for him to participate in similar votes in New Hampshire and other states.