...Giuliani hesitated getting into the race, and pundits started wondering whether he really "wants it?"
...Clinton seemed adrift in Iowa, unable to connect with voters and suffering through rumors that she might withdraw from the first in the nation caucus?
...Obama seemed to be a non-presence on the campaign trail, unable to turn his lofty rhetoric into meat-and-potatoes political speech?
...McCain fired his whole campaign team, and was declared finished?
...Romney admitted driving with his dog on top of his car, but seemed not to have a problem with it?

What's the lesson from this? Presidential campaigns are difficult operations to run, and there is always some clunkiness at the beginning.

So, what's the difference between this clunkiness and the laundry list of grievances Dick Morris has against Fred Thompson's campaign? It is only that all of the above happened in the spring or summer. Thompson started later, so his clunkiness came later. And yet, he's only down 4% in our national average! What does that tell you? Among other things, it indicates that the voters who respond to polls aren't reading Dick Morris!

Before we declare that the Thompson candidacy is finished, we need to take a deep breath and develop a little perspective on matters. Just like all candidates, his opening was a tad clunky. Just like all candidates, he needs to fix the problems. The only difference is when Thompson is doing that. September, not July. Thompson is betting that waiting two months does not matter. Take another look at those polls and ask yourself whether you'd take that bet. I wouldn't.

Now, don't get me wrong. Thompson does indeed need to lock things down. And, if I were running his campaign, I would have strongly preferred a better rollout as well as fewer dramatic incidences in the summer. My point is simply this: there is plenty of time for Thompson to lock it down.

Comparing Dick Morris' column to our polling average is a good lesson in political analysis. Political elites like Dick Morris matter insofar as they help set the political agenda for the broader public. For instance, in choosing which candidates to discuss and who not to discuss, they signal to the public which are viable and which are not. But Thompson is already on the agenda. He's viable. Now that this has happened, we need to reconfigure our view of him because he is now playing to the voters, not to the elites. Elites are hypersensitive to the day-to-day of political news. So, if we wish to gauge Thompson's viability, we have to shift our standards of judgment.

This is what Thompson needs to do: he needs to raise respectable money in the third and fourth quarters, he needs to have some standout debate performances, and he needs to improve his stump speech. None of this other stuff will matter if he does those things.