Thompson as Clark

Ezra Klein and Jason Zengerle agree that "Fred Thompson is to the Republicans in '08 as Wes Clark was to the Democrats in '04. In other words, the highpoint of his campaign will be the day he gets in the race, because once he's a serious candidate--and not just the fevered daydream of a dissatisfied base--voters will realize he's not all that."

I agree that Thompson's luster is likely to fade. But what happened with Clark is that it seemed like he'd be a strong candidate -- military background, southerner, etc. -- but then it turned out he was really bad at campaigning. Thompson's actually campaigned before and it seems he was pretty good at it. If he stumbles, it'll be for some other, not-especially-Clark-like reasons.

Comments

Clark also entered the race in September, which, even by the more leisurely pace of 2004, was really, really late. He was also initially a one-issue candidate whose issue had already been taken by the then front-runner.

Thompson may not fly, but I think his campaign is simple:
1) "I'm not a member of some freaky religion."
2) "I'm not pro-choice, and I don't dress in drag."
3) "I'm not that guy you all hate."

It's never a good thing to campaign on who you aren't, but in this primary, it might be enough.

Posted by Royko | May 30, 2007 11:13 PM

A smart and reliable source tells me that Clark is the smartest guy he knows. Could be, but he sure comes across as kind of a dork, which didn't help his campaign. In that sense, he's kind of the opposite of F. Thompson, who is not particularly smart but comes across as smooth and wise in a made-for-TV Southern Hospitality Homespun Gosh Durn Common Sense and Tough Love sort of way.

I'd still like to see a Gore/Clark situation develop, slightly favorable to Gore/Obama, in the righteous quest to get a NotRepublican in the White House.

Posted by ed | May 30, 2007 11:30 PM

If terrorism is really a concern for the wingnuts then there is now way Thompson gets the nomination.
Does no one remeber the airport takeover that happened while Thompson was in charge. If it wasn't for John McClane, thousands of people would have died.

Posted by Nakatomi Towers | May 31, 2007 12:00 AM

The thing that really bugs me is that if Thompson hadn't had his role on Law & Order, there wouldn't be 10 people on the planet who would consider him a viable candidate, probably including Thompson himself.

All he has to do is end his commercials with "After all, I'm just an old country gentleman" and that will have more of an effect than all of his policies and speeches put together. It reallly does drive me crazy.

Posted by Ghebs | May 31, 2007 12:04 AM

The Republican party couldn't win the next presidential election if they put Jesus Christ himself on the ticket. Arthur Branch is a just a great way for GOP primary voters (and the media) to forget this basic fact. Bank on it.

Posted by sangfroid826 | May 31, 2007 12:28 AM

The 2008 presidential election will be just as close as 2000 and 2004. There are just too many stupid voters out there.

Posted by blah | May 31, 2007 12:33 AM

You forgot Ana Marie Cox. She said the same thing, just earlier.

Posted by anemic coward | May 31, 2007 12:36 AM

Eh, a waste of speculating. The Fred-O-Meter says we're not going Southern. Fred Thompson can go back to filling in for Paul Harvey, maybe he can play a president on a future season of 24. The GOP nomination is between Rudy and Romney and the tide is turning to Romney. Romney has less baggage than Rudy, and he was smart enough to feign outrage at the awful immigration bill (great essay on that bill: A Green Card in every Pot)

Wes Clark is just proof that running for president should never be anyone's first campaign. Dems should have insisted he run for Congress or something first.

Posted by Fred | May 31, 2007 12:41 AM

i think my last comment's gone missing, but i came across this 2004 citizens united video of fred. the last line is wonderful:
http://youtube.com/watch?v=pMvMOGn0w7w

Posted by Chris_ | May 31, 2007 12:42 AM

The 2008 presidential election will be just as close as 2000 and 2004. There are just too many stupid voters out there.

If memory serves, in 2006, for the first time in the history of the United States, no Republican captured any House, Senate, or Gubernatorial seat previously held by a Democrat.

2008 almost certainly will not be like 2000 or 2004. I'm not advocating overconfidence, but the pendulum has swung.

Posted by sangfroid826 | May 31, 2007 1:08 AM

"the pendulum has swung."

If we (rational Republicans) are lucky, when the pendulum swings back, the Dems who keep their seats will be conservatives like Casey, Webb, etc., and then Republicans who win will be better than the dead weight you got rid of for us -- Santorum, Hayworth, etc.

Posted by Fred | May 31, 2007 1:23 AM

Dead weight is the kindest thing I've ever heard anyone say about Rick Santorum

Posted by Gene O'Grady | May 31, 2007 2:22 AM

in 2006, for the first time in the history of the United States, no Republican captured any House, Senate, or Gubernatorial seat previously held by a Democrat.

Except for 1790, 1792, 1794, 1796 and about thirty other times.

Posted by Brian | May 31, 2007 2:24 AM

You do know when the Republican party was founded, don't you? I'm sure the Whigs were totally swept in 17-whatever. But you may want to google the subject before you post. Nevertheless, 2006 was the first time that not a single incumbent Democrat was unseated. That has never happened before. And the electorate isn't done yet.

Posted by sangfroid826 | May 31, 2007 3:53 AM

"Fred Thompson" is a great name, I must say. Very comforting. How can you vote for someone named "Barack Obama" (even my firefox spell-checker doesn't like him) and against someone named Fred Thompson? No way. "John Edwards" is OK too, but "Fred Thompson" is better.

Posted by abb1 | May 31, 2007 6:24 AM

"John Edwards" is OK too, but "Fred Thompson" is better.

John Edwards is too close to John Edward.

Posted by cleek | May 31, 2007 7:23 AM

I think the similarity between Clark and Thompson is there (I've said it twice now in comments), but it's not a personal resemblance. Rather, there are parallels between how each man entered the campaign.

Both are being "cast" by the party faithful as dream candidates for a disappointing field. Neither man has extensive political experience and the rationale for both of their candidates rest on leadership "demonstrated" outside Washington. (Mind you, Clark commanded an international coalition to victory in a highly successful war while Thompson has pretended to be a DA or elite politician on a series of Hollywood sets.)

Most importantly, both are being compelled to enter the race by others. While surely both have daydreamed about running before their entry, neither ever took the initiative themselves, and this is a crucial point. This is why drafting a candidate so seldom works. You can't be in any way shy or reluctant to run for the modern US presidency. It's a torturous grind that requires the candidate to have deep reservoirs of personal conviction and endless patience with the tedium of the process.

W was the only recent successful candidate with a minimal reserve of these qualities, but looking back, I thinking his messianic qualities were probably already there in 2000 and that's what carried him through the race. It also helped that he rather quickly dispatched his only serious rival to the nomination and that the press was much more interested in picking apart his opponent than giving him a serious close look.

I don't think Thompson's Tennessee Senate race a decade ago adequately prepare him for jumping into a crowded field against seasoned contenders with sharp elbows. (Frankly, I think McCain and Giuliani are going to eat him for lunch.) Even the most appealing things about him (warm, comforting) have obvious negatives (i.e., grandfatherly, or to be less euphemistic, kinda fucking old).

If he turns out to be a brilliant campaigner, and gets the nomination, I still don't think he's a threat in the general election unless the nominee is Clinton. Otherwise, imagine this old fart with his pretend gravitas up against the shiny optimism of Obama or Edwards. And consider the wrong-track numbers. My feeling is that the biggest optimist, the person with the most appealing vision of the future, tends to win in moments like these.

Of course, I could be totally wrong about Thompson, but for now, I'd be a lot more worried about the dangers of facing Romney or Giuliani, especially if the press goes all soft on them and fits them into the "manly, heroic Republican" trope. I also believe the greatest threat to the Dems recapturing the White House is Clinton getting the nomination, as poll after poll shows her to be much more vulnerable in the general election than her closest rivals.

Posted by philly | May 31, 2007 7:28 AM

Oh, yeah, and sangfroid, if you think the last time the Whigs were viable was "17-whatever," you really shouldn't be teasing others for their failure to google.

Posted by philly | May 31, 2007 7:30 AM

Oh yeah, and Brian, citing elections from the time before there were organized political parties in this country doesn't really back up your point.

Sorry to be so bitchy about this, but I think history and historical facts are important, and if you're going to be making references to history to support your argument (or tear down someone else's) you should have at least a basic grasp of the history you're talking about.

You really shouldn't be bringing up antebellum precedents if you don't know the basic timeline of the American political system.

Posted by philly | May 31, 2007 7:42 AM

Oh yeah, and Brian, citing elections from the time before there were organized political parties in this country doesn't really back up your point.

Sorry to be so bitchy about this, but I think history and historical facts are important, and if you're going to be making references to history to support your argument (or tear down someone else's) you should have at least a basic grasp of the history you're talking about.

You really shouldn't be bringing up antebellum precedents if you don't understand how the evolution of the American political system worked.

Posted by philly | May 31, 2007 7:43 AM

And if I'm going to be making self-righteous comments, I should at least learn how to post correctly. Sorry!

Posted by philly | May 31, 2007 7:50 AM

I disagree. Fred Thompson will win the GOP nomination. Republicans are nothing if not fantasists.

You heard it here first.

Posted by Brautigan | May 31, 2007 8:43 AM

But of course he'll win the nomination and probably the presidency too; was there a case when an actor ran and lost? For chrissake, even Arnold won.

Posted by abb1 | May 31, 2007 8:53 AM

I think the best day of Thompson campaign has already past. He's basically an ugly version of the generic Republican, Romney, his soulessness aside, is at least a good looking version of a generic Republican.

Posted by AJ | May 31, 2007 11:18 AM

Oh, yeah, and sangfroid, if you think the last time the Whigs were viable was "17-whatever," you really shouldn't be teasing others for their failure to google.

Didn't say viable. Please google "joke". Then "disambiguation". Just finished Team of Rivals and know more about Whigs that will ever win me money on Jeopardy. And now for my Free Soil routine ...

Posted by sangfroid826 | May 31, 2007 12:41 PM

Just as a reminder, Clark did better in the primaries than Edwards. Clark made a huge mistake explaining his Iraq position his first day in the race and made a few other mistakes later, but so did every other politician.

Iowa and the following results just went different than anyone expected. The electorate in Iowa was looking for someone to vote for besides Dean and went for Kerry's "I'm a vet and I can win" approach, the same strategy Clark had going for him. After Iowa it became impossible for Clark to differentiate himself from the front-runner.

I still believe had Clark ran in Iowa he'd be the president today.

Posted by Mark | May 31, 2007 1:17 PM

Royko: "I'm not that guy you all hate."

Perfect explanation for the nonsensical anti-McCain animosity. Dems hate Lieberman because he took the wrong position on the most important issue of the day. Republicans hate McCain because they hate him. (His most high-profile heresy is campaign finance reform, fer cryin' out loud)

Posted by AP | May 31, 2007 3:40 PM

Oh, and now there's immigration too. But the McCain hatred predated this heresy.

Posted by AP | May 31, 2007 3:41 PM

I predict a Gary Hart - Donna Rice moment for Thompson at some point. Old habits die hard.

Posted by lampwick | May 31, 2007 5:03 PM