Cold Showering the Fred Thompson Boomlet

At this stage in the game of the 2008 presidential campaign, candidates are mapping out positions, and voters (those very few already paying attention) are assessing who stands for what. At some point, as we get into the nitty gritty of the campaign, the issues will be well known, the debate over them will begin in earnest, but the notions of qualifications, experience, and what they call 'gravitas' will take center stage. And, when you cut through the noise - the media gotchas, the accusations of flip-flopping, the hobgobblins of YouTube moments - when you get beyond pictures of cross-dressing or Mormonism or use of corporate jets or hedge fund jobs, what you find is that Mitt Romney and Rudy Giuliani have more in the way of qualifications, experience and "gravitas" in their left pinky fingers than Hillary, Obama or Edwards have combined. Some may not care but will vote on principle, wanting a rabid pro-lifer or a committed class warrior in office regardless of qualifications. Still, many many voters are going to ask themselves quite simply, "who is more qualified, who is the truly serious individual?" In that regard, Republicans have the clear advantage, but that is about their only advantage. They would be ill-advised to give up that advantage. Now, Fred Thompson may be awe-inspiring and wonderfully fearsome and may ooze gravitas, but he is light on experience. Quite light. Nominating him risks ceding that advantage. I'm not saying that Fred is a futile option, just that his candidacy entails more risks for conservatives than they either understand right now or are willing to admit. Tread lightly with the Fred-mania.