I'm not concerned about Thompson's ambiguity. As a Republican, I'm looking for inexplicable leadership quality and Fred's got it. Frankly, Obama's got it too. Reagan had it. Bobby Kennedy had it. True leadership crosses party lines. Policy and program proposals can be as untrustworthy and as much of a turn off as the candidates themselves. The question will come down to why are we selecting a man or woman to lead anyway? It won't be the proposals. Ultimately it'll be how we feel with the candidate at the helm. Hidden in the author's article was a case in point. Thompson was selected to sheperd the Supreme Court Justice's nomination because he was unoffensive to democrats and looked good. Sounds like a wise choice to me. Don't we now need a leader who is unoffensive and looks good to congress, the world stage etc.? Isn't that the real starting point? Please, let's not start with a set of proposals or a resume again. On the Supreme Court Justice matter, somebody recognized a quality in Thompson that others lacked and he was trusted with a crucial leadership role on a matter of national importance. That's good enough for me.Thompson can start with raw leadership talent and have a better shot at fixing social security than a policy wonk with a plan but little talent or vision .Genuine leadership rarely squares up with a resume. Gov. Bill Richardson probably has the best resume but will never get elected president. Why? No inspiring leadership. In 1988 it was "the vision thing" now it's "the leadership thing." In 1992 it was, "it's the economy stupid." In 2008, "it's the leadership stupid." Remember "gravitas?" Well, Fred's got it. That's why Fred looks good. We're living in a bizarre new post 9/11, mortgage meltdown, China on the rise era where all the old methods, rules and strategies won't work. So why would a certain set of experiences and resume points prove more successful than the intuition of real leadership talent? It seems to me that Fred's "late" entry into the race coupled with his current "vagueness" is actually creating a refreshing new atmosphere of hope. I'm liking Fred Thompson. I think he's looking good and like Reagan before him, he's going to best when handlers and pundits "let Fred be Fred."

You scare the hell out of me. After the last 7 years of incompetence and deceit, you want Thompson because he's "unoffensive and looks good"? You go on and on about Thompson's "raw leadership", yet you nor anybody else can point to anything concrete he's done to demonstrate it beyond looking the part in front of the cameras.

I'm sorry, but when the shit hits the fan, I want the smartest guy in the room. I want the guy who's actually gotten things done and knows how to marshal the available manpower and resources. I want the guy who can think ahead, envision better ways to do things, and work for positive change. I and want to know what their vision is, what they propose to do, and how they plan to do it BEFORE giving them the power to do it.

It's inconceivable how you or anyone would actively want to know less about a candidate's ideas, intentions and policy priorities, and even more baffling that you want an empty facade stage managed by "handlers and pundits".

I'm sorry, but I'm not about to abdicate my responsibility as a citizen by handing the power to a surrogate daddy stand-in, put my head under the covers, and hope everything is going to be alright.

LMoE

If all that the country needs is some person who appears to be a leader and looks the part, then what the hell is the point with elections? We should just call a casting agent, put it on a reality show with real gravitas laden folks like Pacino, Duvall, DeNiro and throw in Helen Mirren, Judi Dench and a hologram of Brando for good measure. This is not a game folks, this is reality. The problem with looking at this superficially is that the stakes are too high. Superficiality is what got us Dubya, the most unqualified President in modern history. The lack of substance is why the national media told us lies about Gore inventing the Internet or being too stiff and boring. I could care less what the new President sounds like, looks like or makes me feel, that person better damn well know what to do and how to make decisions. Fred Thompson is not that person. In fact, neither is Obama even though one day he will be President if he survives. We need leadership that has been tested. You say the Governor will never be elected. You are right. Thats because he will never win American Idol or the next Super Model reality show you all seem to want to use to select the most important job in the world.

Grow up everyone. This is not a game.

Jeeze people, don't bother me with facts! And regarding the resume thing, Bush senior had a swell resume and he was just about the second worst president in the long history of the republic. Bush junior had the 'able" assistance of all sorts of guys with long resumes, like Dick Cheney (Mister Gravitas, the guy who told Pat Leahey to go fuck himself -- that guy) and Donnie Rumsfeld (the guy who still thinks we WON in Afghanistan, smack capital of the universe), Powell, Wolfie and so on.

Give the top poster credit for raising a genuine issue: not many people vote on resume. Most vote on intuitive judgements of character. That's why a calculated smear campaign like the one the Bushies ran against Gore works. On resume, on issues, on sheer visible competence Bush was visibly the inferior candidate. Plus, if you recall, things were going pretty well, economically.

I like Glvernor Richardson. I think he and Obama are the class of the race. They're people who've done real things, real public service. Thompson has always been a front man. Saying he's like Reagan is not a complement. There was a time when we could afford a phony like Reagan, though it's amazing how many of the open sores in today's world had their origin in bad Reagan policy. In any case, given the damage done by Reagan and the Bushes, we can not afford another Potemkin President: another American Yeltsin.

Here's a view from Tennessee.

Fred Thompson is undoubtedly the most accomplished actor of all of the presidential candidates, and I enjoyed listening to him recently when he filled in for Paul Harvey and read his folksy-but-scripted commentaries on the news.

I am hearing concern, however, from folks who point out that Fred is avoiding the traditional sorts of unscripted debates and hard questioning that really show how a candidate thinks and who he or she is.

Fred is great with a script and a Web site, but the problem is that the presidency is only 2 percent scripted show business. The other 98 percent is about management (with consequences) and action under pressure and choosing the right people based on merit, not partisan politics, in order to turn a vision into meaningful, positive results.

Bill Clinton brought in some brilliant people to his Cabinet, but squandered his leadership opportunities through his sex addiction. George Bush brought in political partisan appointees to his Administration and hurt the country by his almost-total lack of oversight and accountability for the consequences of his appointees' political hackery (including hundreds of billions of dollars paid to, and often wasted or lost by, military contractors formerly headed by Dick Cheney).

The fact is that Fred Thompson apparently wasted a lot of opportunity and accomplished little during his many years as a U.S. Senator, and then proceeded to rake in the cash during the "W" years as a D.C. "Good Ole' Lobbyist." Nothing illegal, but not very inspiring, either.

I reckon I am reserving judgment on Fred Thompson until we can see -- and hear -- far beyond his carefully engineered surface image, and can figure out whether he would follow "W's" lead in making flawed partisan appointments.

And, I hope that Fred and Jeri keep Karl Rove -- the architect of Bush's failures -- far away from the Fred Express.

Ultimately, the only thing the Democrats will concern themselves with will be Fred's young wife and their sex life and personal life. You know how the Democrats 'are'.

But offhand, Fred looks better (so far) than any other Rep candidate to me. But then again....it's still early and things do tend to change.

I want the next president to say he will take the current administration to the Intrnational court in the Hague to account for alltheir crimes.. and that means all of them. these people have to pay for their crimes against humanity.

??? I want the next president to give everyone a pony.

Your last candidate was presented by the GOP as a man who had "it." Back then, "it" was defined as "moral clarity." Part of this was simply predictable campaign spin--Bush didn't run against Gore so much as he ran against Clinton's sex life. But the claim of moral clarity turned out to be empty rhetoric. Because moral clarity requires a thoughtful intellect guided by experience and a strong moral compass. Bush lacked the whole first half of the equation. And I'm not sure he has the second half down either. Republicans always preach that "smarts doesn't count for much." That is, hard work and a track record of success are more important than native intelligence. Work ethic and a record of accomplishment in business and public service are more important than education. Funny how they select candidates with exactly the opposite criterion--people who have strong name recognition and look great on TV but don't have, er, any real ability. As Brad suggests, the Republican Party is so morally bankrupt, its only hope of survial is to provide the essence of leadership. Real leadership would require courage and ideas.

My girlfriend says she can picture Harrison Ford being a good president. In his roles as Jack Ryan and even as the president in Air Force One, he just looks presidential. And hey, his first and last names are both presidential names!

I agree with Mr. Orchard that many if not most voters will ultimately vote based on how they "feel" about a candidate. Like most responders, I disagree that that is a good thing. It's the best way to decide on a candidate if you don't want to take the time to build a decent understanding of the actual issues and policy proposals, but it's no substitute.

What ultimately matters isn't how the president looks, but rather what he does while in office. The best way to predict that is if he tells us, in boring detail, what he/she plans to do and how it can get done. The campaigns have millions of dollar armies all dedicated to manipulating the feeling you get from a candidate, but policy is something you can't fake. If a guy is unwilling or unable to tell us how he wants to govern the United States, why should we let him?

Last Man - I think he might be basing Fred's "Leadership Qualities" on his roles in 'Die Hard 2' or 'Law & Order' because you're right, there's nothing else to base it on. Let's face it, Republicans are simply suckers for lifes absurdities without a clue.

at all. Actually, he appears rather sickly these days. One has to wonder about his health and hopefully, people are looking into that. God Bless America, Thank you for your support and ON TO VICTORY in 2008 !!

that, joanne! (Or any of the Republican candidates, for sure.)

"As a Republican, I'm looking for inexplicable leadership quality and Fred's got it."

There is no denying that W has "leadership quality." He sees himself as a strong leader, and many others see him that way. The problem is where he's led us, and that's based on policy.

I agree with the original poster that many people vote on character. But like most of the responders, I think that's precisely what's gotten us into trouble. If more people took the time to vote on the issues, if they made the candidates offer realistic responses to the issues that face us, then we'd have a politics that is based in reality.

But so far, the public doesn't want real answers, perhaps because real solutions require public involvement and public action, and so the politicians get away with promising fantasies that they can't deliver. The public gets disillusioned, and then looks for someone else who will sweet-talk them, and the cycle continues.

We'll have serious politics again when the public decides to take issues seriously, instead of looking for ineffable leadership and character qualities.