Spoke this morning at Oak Ridge National Laboratory, giving them my new "State of the World" brief because I've already given them the bulk of the existing PNM/BFA/Vol. III preview brief. I had my PPTmaster, Bradd Hayes, throw together a slide per issue, pirating the cool graphics Esquire generated for the piece.

To my surprise, it's a really fun brief to give--basically a tour d'horizon of current issues and affairs.

I also gave them a short brief on the rise of AFRICOM.

Lots of questions, naturally, on the presidential field. Since I'm in east Tennessee, I don't field too many questions on Dems, but rather get a strong sense of the ambivalence a lot of Republicans have about the current field. No one seems to be excited about McCain, and no one counters when you talk about him inevitably torpedoing. Hagel seems distant for now. Giuliani is respected, but the social issues rule out the support of so many here. Romney is liked, but there's a similar feeling of unelectability.

So, because this is Tennessee, and a very politically-connected environment (you don't get to be Oak Ridge National Laboratory by having your head up your youknowwhat on DC politics), you hear a lot about Fred Thompson, and his much-anticipated decision to join the field--forthcoming within days by all accounts (get out that red pickup, Fred!).

How is this potential presidency defined, speculatively at this point? Connected people here say it will be very Reagan-like in form and function: Thompson is no micro-manager but chief communicator who would attract a lot of sensible talent. Like Reagan, he'd talk a lot of social conservatism but would be more moderate in actual action.

Would a Reagan-like GOP presidency, absent the Cold War ideology and the anti-DC mandate, be just what we need?

Mebbe, mebbe not.

But Thompson will definitely spice up the GOP field considerably, continuing to make this election the most interesting of my adult life.