John Dickerson seems a bit sensitive over the Democrats infatuation with Obambi as Maureen O'Dowd refers to him.

When Newt Gingrich wanted to dismiss Barack Obama, he did it in a phrase. Obama would make a great president, said the former House speaker, "if the country wants therapy." Like the claim that John Kerry "looks French" from the 2004 election, this quip works on many levels for GOP voters. It refuses to treat Obama seriously and paints his supporters as frail, emotional, and needy. It also reasserts a broader claim about the difference between the two parties: Republicans are adults focused on serious issues; Democrats engage in sentimental swooning that will get us all killed at night in our beds.

At this point we should all join in a chorus of "duh", but Dickerson gives cause for reflection in pointing out the Fred Thompson appears to be enjoying something at least similar among conservatives.

Given the self-image of conservatives, it's a little surprising, then, that so many are excited about Fred Thompson, a candidate whose chief qualification seems to be that he makes them feel good. The former Tennessee senator has less experience than all the other top GOP contenders and yet he is being talked about as the savior for a party that is unhappy with its current crop of candidates and its chances in 2008. Thompson has not entered the race, but in television appearances two weeks ago, he hinted that he might.

I don't know these people who are apparently "unhappy" with the current crop of candidates--frankly I'm thrilled. I could live with just about anyone of them as president, although I have obvious preferences for Mitt Romney. The "problems" these candidates have can only be identified as such within the context of their general appeal to the Republican party--McCain's ambiguous political philosophy dims his luster for some, while his stalwart position on the war have endeared him to many others--sometimes the same people who dislike him for McCain-Feingold and other errors of judgment. Rudy has a flaky personal life, Romney may have been too politically heterodox to receive absolution and Newt Gingrich is really mean.

Fred Thompson stands out from this crowd in that he has no apparent qualifications for the job, but no serious deficiencies either. Besides that, we like him in Law & Order.

Ultimately, Dickerson is probably right--both Obama and Thompson represent a yearning in either party, for the charisma and vision of past glory. Democrats compare every candidate to JFK, while conservatives hold up Ronald Reagan as the ideal.

There is a romantic ideal being reflected in the candidacies of Obama and possibly Thompson, but there are nevertheless clear differences in the quality of that ideal. JFK was handsome and charming and had a beautiful family, but as a president, he didn't leave much of a mark. Granted, he performed well in the missile crisis, but his legend has everything to do with "what might have been", and very little with what actually was. He played the hand he was dealt when he came into office, but probably not very differently from how Nixon would have.

Reagan changed the country, and the world. Kennedy's governing principles would have been termed "right-wing extremism" in the current Democrat party, but Reagan still stands as Moses among the Republicans. The yearning for a new Reagan is as much for a return to the party's core principles as it is for a beloved man.

Ultimately, any candidate has to deal with the disappointment that he or she isn't in fact Moses returned. Thompson, if he runs, will get there quickly enough. Perhaps then we can deal with the fact that what we really need is a Joshua to carry us into the promised land.

I lean to Romney, but I could warm to a conservative who smokes Cuban cigars and when asked about being attacked if he declares as a candidate for President says:

That's the least of it anymore. It's not pleasant, but it's not that important anymore because you're straight with your family, you have a level of understanding and knowledge about your family, and they with you, and with the man upstairs, and that's that. You know, ain't really much past that. And it kind of frees you up in a way.

Every election sees the same unimaginative schtick by the media--Republicans and/or Democrats are dissatisfied with the current field and are looking for a real conservative-slash-liberal to fire up the party.

Fred Thompson is the second coming of Reagan, which is amusing since Reagan also faced ambivalence about his own candidacy.

"He's no Eisenhower..."

Its a poor foundation for a political candidacy since every non-Reaganesque thing you do undermines your reason for being there.

'It was not Reaganesque.'' ''No red meat.'' ''Too low key.'' That was the preponderant reaction I heard to Thompson's half-hour presentation (leavened by a few favorable comments, mostly by women, that he was more ''statesmanlike'' and ''presidential'' than the announced candidates). Lincoln Club members, like many conservative Republicans, had been unimpressed by the existing field of Republican hopefuls and envisioned Thompson as the second coming of Ronald Reagan. They did not get it Friday night.

The excitement aroused in melancholy Republican ranks by the politician-commentator-actor will not be doused by one lackluster performance. Nevertheless, his first speech since his unexpected presidential boom began suggests Thompson needs preparation if he does take up this daunting burden. The deeper concern by some supporters is whether the tepid reaction in Orange County will shake what had seemed his clear resolve to make the race.

Expectations were exaggerated as well-dressed Republicans gathered at the posh Balboa Bay Club on Friday night. Dissatisfaction with the current presidential field was intensified by the chaotic nationally televised debate of 10 Republican candidates the previous night. Rudy Giuliani seemed uncomfortable dealing with standard conservative issues. John McCain sounded harsh and hawkish. Mitt Romney's newfound conservatism still seems contrived to many in the Republican base. ''Everybody is still looking for the conservative candidate,'' Orange County Republican Chairman Scott Baugh told me.

Poor Fred. He shows up as himself and people are underwhelmed.

See for yourself

Thompson is engaged in a remarkable strip tease--Is he running or not? As long as he's not running, he seems to be doing quite well in the polls. Maybe if he never runs, he'll win the election.

In official campaign finance parlance, the move represents a shift from "giving serious consideration" to a presidential bid, as Thompson said he would do back in March, as a non-candidate, to a "testing the waters" period where one is, in effect, a candidate-in-waiting with a campaign-in-preparation. Thompson advisers point out that the new testing-the-waters entity is not quite a campaign committee, though it will officially begin accepting contributions on June 4. On that day--the First Day, as it were--the campaign will take in donations that it can then tout as an impressive one-day haul. A corollary benefit will be that news reports about Thompson's non-entry entry will run on June 5, when the declared candidates will meet in New Hampshire for their third debate. (Thompson won't be required to disclose his donors and the amounts they give to the Federal Election Commission until September.)

Thompson will of course encounter a host of problems--his main rivals are going to have between 30 and 50 million in their accounts. McCain and Romney in particular have been working for more than a year to establish state committees and lining up support from party officials both in-state and in Washington. They've also well down the road dealing with the opposition research, developing responses to explain past positions and defining their campaign themes.

Thompson has all that ahead of him.

Thompson's assets are of course, huge name recognition and a folksy manner, but he's also frequently described as lazy and undisciplined. Although he's often compared to Reagan, Reagan was governor of California and a successful one at that. Thompson was a one-term Senator.

I've got nothing against the guy, but he seems to me to be the Republican John Edwards--an empty suit. His supporters are also discounting the scut work it takes to win primaries--the months spent courting delegates in Iowa and New Hampshire.

I suspect that Thompson is actually running for Vice-President. Its less work and he's well suited to it. Frankly, both Romney and Giuliani could use some southern folksiness on their tickets.

Interesting commentary over at Race 4 2008:

Since I started blogging at Redstate three years ago and since my conservative epiphany in 2000 I can say that the biggest disappointment I have had with some conservatives in the blogosphere is the amount of anti-southern bigotry I have seen. I have even come to have a superiority complex on all things regional given that I have never known a Southerner that would not vote for someone because they were not from the South. I guess we developed this superiority during the formative Civil Rights years!

Or maybe we base our votes on relevant information? Like their policies, duh? Character?

Folks, voters vote on issues, character and leadership. Jimmy Carter, Bill Clinton and George W. Bush are all from the South. Bush kills terrorists. The other guys that talk slow appeased them. Bush cut taxes. The others from Dixie raised them. Bush picks good judges.
Clinton put a feminist on the court. Carter lusted in his heart.
Clinton lusted all over the carpet and Bush is faithful to his wife.

Southern Diversity. (Except on immigration, all three would sell out the country)

Voters will not be “reminded” of Bush if Thompson advocates border security first, cuts in government spending and delivers lines like a fine actor from Law and Order.

Where a candidate is from is irrelevant at the top of the ticket.If it is relevant to you, look in the mirror.

I think the post would have been better titled, "anti-southern bias...", which I think would be more accurate.

What struck me as a read it was that Carter, Clinton and Bush actually benefited from their southern roots. Carter neatly avoided the busing issue that polarized politics in the 1970s by supporting it but being southern. As Pat Caddell put it, southerners just couldn't bring themselves to believe that a southern man really meant it when he said he supported busing.

Clinton, even more than Carter, benefited from the perception of southern cultural expectations, allowing him to talk liberal when it suited him, but ride the perception that he was essentially a conservative Democrat.

The Democrats, in what was about as explicit an acknowledgment of the built-in southern political bias, worked hard to disqualify George W. Bush as a southerner, just as they did with his father. The problem was that Dubya looks, walks and talks authentic southern so thoroughly that it was never a credible argument.

I think what began with Carter has culminated with Bush--the public has been disabused of the myth of southern cultural uniformity. We ain't buyin' the implication that Fred Thompson's southern (read: former slave-holding state) actually means anything beyond a dialect and a taste for fried food.

Conservative no longer has an accent. Neither does liberal.

I suspect that what is really going on, because I take the view myself, is that conservatives are looking for a more articulate marketing of conservative policies by a Republican administration.

Its not the southern, its the stupid that is bothering us.

There has been a lot written, in the wake of Joe Scarborough's crude comments with reference to Jeri Thompson, Fred's wife. The vast majority of it was condemnation, but Dr. Helen takes a little bit of a different tack. In response to critical comments about Fred's public "leering" at his own wife, Helen notes:

This is yet another example of a woman who deep down believes that men have no right to leer at women, lest it be considered a sex offense. And she is not alone, there are many other women who feel that unless one is Bill Clinton or the object of their own lecherous desires (of course, for these women, their own desire is called empowerment--not lechery!), a regular joe has no right to look at a woman--not even in pictures--with desire in his heart. In their eager quest to control men's sexual rights, some "feminist" women (and other prudish ones too!) go to extremes to shame, expose or intimidate men who let their lust for women dare come to the surface.

I think Helen is missing the point. From my experience with women of a "certain age", the real objection here isn't the leering, its the leering at a much younger woman.

Its every (older) woman's worst nightmare--you sweat, sacrifice and worry from the poverty of newlyweds to finally achieve a measure of financial success, status and security, and your husband dumps you for a woman twenty years your junior.

Fred's got a big, big problem.

Now I don't know anything at all about Fred and Jeri's relationship, but the mere fact that she's a very attractive 40 year old woman many years Fred's junior trifles with primordial forces that should be left quiescent.

Every woman knows in her cells, from the time she reaches puberty, that her prospects for male companionship are directly related to how she looks. Even through years of education, career, child-raising and other achievements, the knowledge that a woman's looks define her and that age is conspiring to rob her of those most fundamental assets, is a constant source of dread. A 6:00AM this morning, the streets around my home were filled with jogging woman between 30 and 50 years old, working hard to keep their figures.

Fred reminds them that its a losing battle, and "scumbags" with no loyalty will blithely abandon them for someone younger and prettier. Then they get mad.

Giuliani has a similar problem, but--how can I say this delicately--Mrs. Giuliani isn't quite as intense a reminder of male perfidy as Mrs. Thompson is.

Politics is an emotionally-invested business, and things like this matter. Its notable that the pretty boys in the presidential sweepstakes, Obama, Edwards and Romney, have all been married to one wife of approximately their own age cohort. Obama married his boss. John and Elizabeth met in law school. Mitt and Ann were high school sweethearts. Mitt and John's spouses are terminally ill. These are candidates that can and will do well with both sexes.

On the other hand, the other candidates tend to appeal overwhelmingly to one sex-- They represent the sexist ambitions. Giulani, Thompson and McCain have trophy wives and as one reporter has noted, they dress the part.

Mrs. John McCain, 52, just gave Fox News’ Greta Van Susteren an at-home tour wearing this tight, bubble-gum-pink wraparound shirt cut to her sternum. Three inches of cleavage. Poor Greta, the consummate professional in blue blazer and yellow button-down, didn’t know where to look. Meanwhile nearly half the pictures you see of Judy Nathan, aka Mrs. Giuliani, also 52, are very bosomy. Is this supposed to convince those wondering about Rudy - you know, after he bunked with the gay guys post divorce #2 - that he’s not just A Big Hetero but A Big Hetero Who Loves Big Hetero Breasts?

Flashed around the country Thursday was yet another full cleavage shot of Fred Thompson’s child wife looking almost as well-endowed as Alex Rodriguez’s stripper/pole-dancer girlfriend. “That was quite a dress,” said one GOP analyst, breathless.

Perhaps Fred’s wife “Jeri” - yes, with an “i” - helps Fred with AARP, Viagra-ed up men: “You still got it goin’, Fred, you dirty dog.”

Hillary Clinton has a different dynamic going on, but its exclusive as well--a feminist role model with no emotional resonance at all for men (at least, not real men...).

My guess is that the winners in these contests will be the loyal spouses...who have the sense to dress with some self-respect.

UPDATE: Don Surber's column ridicules Margery Eagan church lady sensibilities.

I'm a fan of Don's, but he's clueless on this one. Running around in a state of undress is not an expression of female equality, but rather the more traditional expression of patriarchy. The jewellery-bedecked decolletage of 18th century wasn't a reflection of the liberated status of women, but of the chattel of an alpha male.

Ms. Eagan is speaking for a great many women who find this kind of behavior in other women--particularly more mature women--unseemly. The fact that Don doesn't get it isn't all that surprising--men tend to like breasts, and that is part of the problem. Its not just feminists that want to be taken seriously, its women generally, and when the only the way they can command a man's attention is through sexual signals, they are demeaned as individuals.

I don't expect Hillary Clinton is going to play peak-a-boo with breasts, or wear shorts with writing on the butt. On the other hand, I'd be shocked to see George W. Bush running around shirtless as well. There is a time in the place to express one's sexuality. In this over-sexualized world, that seems to be a lost concept.

Hmmm. Do the Democrats know something I don't know?

The DNC apparently fears the candidacy of Senator Thompson in ways it hasn't demonstrated for Giuliani or Romney. The DNC is actually spending money to fearmonger among Democrat contributors, using the specter of a Fred Thompson presidency to raise money.

High praise indeed.

Do they have cause to worry? I think if I was Hillary, I'd be happy to face Fred, who while charming (according to his ex-girlfriends and wife) doesn't have much of a resume, doesn't appear too quickwitted and isn't in fact, Ronald Reagan.

Fred lowers expectations:

“I would certainly acknowledge that expectations are high, but I don’t agree with the idea that we have to go out and be perfect,” Thompson’s communications director, Todd Harris, told The Examiner.

“You know, we’re going to make mistakes — I’ll say it right now,” he added. “We have to have a good announcement tour. There’s no question about that.”

Thompson has probably made the biggest mistake already--refusing to enter the race officially. His support has declined since its peak and going official now doesn't appear like its going to add much luster. In fact, his poor public performances strongly suggest that he's at a significant disadvantage in going head-to-head with Romney and Giuliani, both of who have sharpened their skills and the effectiveness of their political teams with league play.

Thompson would have been much better off going in at the beginning of the summer and making his mistakes while people were on the beach. As it stands, we are now in the home stretch and Fred is going in cold.

Maybe I'll be surprised, but I doubt it.

I've been underwhelmed by Fred Thompson since the initial talk of his presidential candidacy. His appearance last night on Leno to official announce his candidacy didn't change that impression.

What's keeping me interested is the fact that other bloggers whose work I appreciate, seem to find something appealing about him. Perhaps they know something I don't know.

Thompson was noticeably thinner, which I guess is mandatory for a presidential run and the Tonight show is probably as good a venue as any to announce--or is it? I'm not sure what Leno's demographics are, but for me personally, the only time I watch it is if he has a guest on that I would want to see, then I TiVO it and skip through the lame monologue and skits until I get to the interview. The musical act skews very young and almost never interests me. This raises the question of whether conservatives tuned in Leno to watch Thompson and if that's the case, why not look for a more advantageous forum--say the Rush Limbaugh show?

Why not announce earlier and then make the New Hampshire debates?

Thompson seems to want to avoid exposure, which is very weird because if he is going to have a chance to win the nomination, he has to play catchup.

Right Wing Nut House doesn't think Thompson has a chance. I agree.

Pejman who?

What is it about typing in one's pajamas that breeds such arrogance? Frankly, I think endorsements are pretty silly on their face. They aren't so much about the candidate as they are a statement of how great and powerful the endorser is--vote for this candidate my minions...

Few people or institutions can legitimate claim to have the power to influence votes by decree--unions certainly, Oprah perhaps, bloggers?

Nah.

What bloggers can do, and should, is provide educated opinion on the strengths and weaknesses of candidates. Pejman does make the attempt, but ultimately I find myself scratching my head as I do with so many bloggers running down their pros and cons on the candidates.

Giuliani has less foreign policy experience than many other candidates? Can we please get a definition of experience and some specifics about who is superior in this regard? By some tokens, Ambassador Joe Wilson has way more foreign policy experience than any single candidate in either party.

In my mind, foreign policy is less a matter of experience than it is a matter of realism and philosophy. What are a candidates views on what the foreign policy of the U.S. should be? Do they understand the limitations of U.S. foreign policy? Can they strike an acceptable balance between the objectives and the reality?

The abortion issue is only relevant in the context of the make up of the Supreme Court, because no president is going to make or break law on the issue other than to nominate sufficiently conservative justices. I'm not a Giuliani booster, but I believe him when he promises to nominate candidates with the appropriate judicial philosophy.

So to quote Walter Mondale--where's the beef? I can think of a number of reasons to oppose Giuliani's nomination, but these aren't two of them.

Pejman's criticism of Romney is even more obtuse. Romney is soft on immigration? I've heard and read lots of criticism of Romney, but I've never heard him declared and open-borders guy. Interestingly, Pejman doesn't criticize McCain for his stance on immigration, which begs belief since he was the coauthor of McCain-Kennedy.

In the end, his support for Thompson is based on a detailed and specific proposals to eliminate entitlement programs and implement a flat tax.

Are you kidding me?

Are there really still conservatives out there who remain unaware that politics is the art of the possible? Neither proposal has any chance of ever becoming law no matter how specific and detailed it is. Thompson as a former Senator knows this beyond a shadow of a doubt, and that makes his proposal incredibly disingenuous--a promise he can't possibly keep.

I'm being tougher on Pejman, whom I don't know and whose prior work I'm am only superficially familiar with, than I intended to be, but its this kind of populist nonsense and naivety that is going to kill the Republican party.

The president is not a monarch. He is co-equal to Congress, which a realistic outlook suggests will stay in Democrat thrall for at least one, possibly two more election cycles. While a presidential candidate should run on stated policies as a means of forging a mandate, the reality is that a successful president will have the right personal characteristics:

An authentic but not reflexively conservative philosophy. Sclerotic ideological consistency is a poor way to deal with a rapidly changing world. The ideals of conservatism should be tempered with the discipline and humility to work the problem before imposing a solution.

Executive skill. It is after all, an executive office--THE executive office. We desperately need a president who can whip this morbidly-obese bureaucracy into some kind of effective shape. George W. Bush has his heart in the right place, but from Katrina to Iraq, he's consistently been bludgeoned by an antagonistic, incompetent and directionless federal bureaucracy. One simply can't discuss foreign policy WITHOUT considering how the bureaucracy is hobbling the country.

Communication skills. George W. Bush has gotten a lot better, but his lack of native skill has been among his greatest weaknesses as president. We need a Republican president who can articulate policy, who can make the case for why this or that action is necessary and appropriate and in the interests of the country. Even more importantly, we need a president who can personally refute the opposition spin. Why personally? The left owns the media and in spite of the brilliant work of conservative pundits, the reality is that in today's information environment, they preach to the choir. The president has the unique ability to be heard by the entire country, which is why he needs to be the one who provides the balance.

A president with the right character and skill set is a much more valuable asset in advancing conservative policies that someone with properly orthodox credentials.

Rule yourself accordingly.

To be honest, I've never been thrilled about Fred Thompson, and that's largely because of a difference in how I and some others evaluate candidates. Thompson is clearly a charming fellow, and someone who has that magical quality of being a consistent conservative.

I'm not putting Thompson in this class, but lots of idiots have been consistent conservatives--I'm just not all that impressed by people who've always held the same views, in fact, it scares me. If you have the same views over 10, 20 or 30 years, you aren't sufficiently reflective or your life's experience has been too narrow.

My objection, if you can call it that, is that Thompson doesn't have the experience or the demonstrated skills for dealing with what is going to be an incredibly complex world in the next four to eight years. Ideally, we should vote for a president because of who they are and what they can do. Thompson has one, but not the other.

Nevertheless, Thompson did impress me today with the contents of an off-the-cuff address that was manipulated to make Thompson look bad at CNN (the article has been taken down...no, its up again).

Thompson should thank them though, because the controversy led me to read his comments in full, and frankly, I was impressed.

I approach life differently than a lot of people. People, I guess, are wondering how I've been as successful as I've been in everything I've done. I've won two races in Tennessee by twenty points in a state Bill Clinton carried twice. I had never run for office before. I've never had an acting lesson, and I guess that's obvious. (laughter). When I did it, I did it. It wasn't just a lark. Anything worth doing is worth doing well. I've always been a little more laid back than most. I like to say I'm only consumed by very few things, and politics is not one of them. The welfare of my country, and my kids and grandkids, growing up, is one of them. (applause)

If what people really want in their president is a super type A personality, someone who has gotten up every morning and gone to bed every night and been thinking about, for years how they can be president of the United States... someone who can look you straight in the eye and say they've enjoyed every minute of campaigning... (laughter) I ain't that guy. (more laughter) [To questioner] So I hope I've discussed that, or I haven't talked you out of anything. I honestly want... I can't imagine a worse set of circumstances than achieving the presidency under a false pretenses, especially if you feel the way I do. I've gone out of my way to be myself, because I don't want anybody to think they're getting something they're not getting. I'm not consumed by this process, I'm not consumed with the notion of being president. I'm simply saying I'm willing to do what's necessary to achieve it if I'm in sync with the people. And if the people want me, or somebody like me, I will do what I've always done with everything else in my life. I will take it on and do a good job. You'll have the disadvantage of having someone who probably can't jump up and click their heels three times, but will tell you the truth. And you'll know where the president stands at all times."

This is man who understands the political process and himself and that's a rare quality. I'd be happy to call this man friend, and I can finally see why some consider him "their guy".

Although the Thompson camp strongly denies it, Politico is reporting that Thompson will bow out if he doesn't do well in Iowa.

This is what I would call a vicious circle. Politico has a story, but if they wait until tomorrow its value diminishes. By posting the story today, the Thompson campaign is forced to deny it because acknowledgment would depress the turnout for the candidate.

I think the story is probably true for no other reason that you can't make a silk purse out of a sow's ear. Thompson doesn't have the money and isn't getting the support that he needs to continue and its difficult to see where he gets it later in the process.

From my perspective, Thompson's problem is George W. Bush. Bush was elected on the basis of his conservative orthodoxy. Social conservatives were pleased, economic conservatives were pleased, national security conservatives didn't yet exist in significant numbers. There seems to be a tacit consensus among conservatives that Bush had his heart in the right place but that his performance didn't match his good intentions.

In short--Bush embarrassed conservatives.

As a result, we have a crop of top tier candidates that are characterized by exceptional performance in at least one area. McCain and Giuliani are more than orthodox on national security, they are proven leaders. Huckabee really, really loves Jesus. Romney's economic conservativism is marrow-deep and he's super competent, which translated means that he won't embarrass us with goofy military invasions and drowsy response to domestic crisis.

Fred Thompson just resembles George W. Bush too much, and I think his perceived lackadaisical attitude towards campaigning only emphasized the future potential for embarrassment.

“Without a solid third-place finish, there’s no point in going on,” a Thompson adviser said Wednesday. “It was an honorable race, and he turned out to be a good candidate. The moment had just passed.”

True, true.

Mitt, good morning. Now's the time to call Fred. "Fred, I like your debate performance and your persona. We agree across the board on the broad strokes of policy. We're on the same side splitting the conservative vote. That risks Florida giving unstoppable momentum to your friend John. Then conservatism is finished for the foreseeable future. I want you on my side. What will it take?"

Fred Thompson is visiting his recently-ill 90 year old mother in Tennessee. His staff has taken a pay cut and Thompson is undoubtedly considering his next move very carefully.

The question Thompson has to answer is what are his supporters thinking? If there was a huge hue and cry for Fred, we certainly would have seen it by now. Except for the recent poll that may have been buoyed by the media talking him up to make for a more exciting race, Thompson has been polling in the single digits in Florida. Without first or second place, he has zero chance on Super Tuesday, and its simply outside of the realm of possibility that Fred could jump 20 points in a week.

I find it more than passing strange that Fred is the darling of the far-right. His record in Congress is nearly identical to McCain's.

Patrick Ruffini, a major Fred-head himself, hosted a poll asking who Thompson supporters would go to if Thompson dropped out. An overwhelming 74% said Romney.

There may be other factors that keep a Thompson bid alive, but if this is about being the nominee, the answer is clear--stay home and take care of mother.

"Today, I have withdrawn my candidacy for president of the United States. I hope that my country and my party have benefited from our having made this effort."

Thompson made no endorsement of his former rivals.

Fred impressed me with some of his candid, off-the-cuff remarks that defined straight-talk in a political environment where the term is an oxymoron. This comment impressed me deeply:

I'm simply saying I'm willing to do what's necessary to achieve it if I'm in sync with the people. And if the people want me, or somebody like me, I will do what I've always done with everything else in my life. I will take it on and do a good job. You'll have the disadvantage of having someone who probably can't jump up and click their heels three times, but will tell you the truth. And you'll know where the president stands at all times."

Fred explaining his reasons for running for president.

I expect that future presidents will find reasons to call on Fred Thompson to serve his country once again.