I'm rather surprised that floating Fred Thompson's name in a GOP poll nets him 12% of the vote. That suggests his name recognition is far higher than I suspected. Meanwhile, I'm much less sanguine than Matt about Thompson's chances. Matt seems to think Thompson's relative paucity of experience and lack of legislative accomplishments will grievously harm his chance, but then, Matt's among many Democrats who've been impressed by Obama despite his relative paucity of experience and lack of legislative accomplishments. This stuff just doesn't seem to matter. And Thompson's acting career, in which he plays presidents and other authoritative figures, is actually much better preparation for a presidential campaign than expanding SCHIP subsidies. Vast experience at projecting presidential virtue is certainly capable of besting actual presidential virtues.
Update: Matt's second argument on this is much more convincing. It's worth occasionally thinking through these issues in the context of who candidates would be vulnerable to, rather than what they'd be vulnerable on. Thompson, like many Republicans who served in Congress during the mid-90s, can be cut apart by a convincing domestic liberal like Edwards or Clinton who can effectively exploit his votes to cut Medicare. I'd be much less confident about the relevance of Obama's hopeful appeal in a matchup with Thompson, though. Conversely, I think Obama would be very strong against a seemingly moderate, genial type like Mitt Romney.
