A few weeks ago, I was excited about the presidential contest. There was a candidate in the race whom I was completely for. Fred Thompson was on the correct side of just about all the issues, and he could easily articulate and defend his viewpoint. He said all the right things, and I was electrified every time I heard him speak.

And then...he quit.

Fred, Fred, why did you do it?  You could have at least held on until today.  I would have enthusiastically tapped the touch-screen for you (we don't pull levers in Memphis anymore).  Instead, I once again had to vote against someone rather than for someone.  I was faced with the unsavory choices of:

• Voting for my next favorite candidate, even though I don't think he has a prayer of carrying Tennessee;
• Voting for the other guy, who could take Tennessee from the-guy-who-must-not-be-the-nominee-if-we-are-to-have-any-hope, but whom I don't trust with running the country; or
• Voting in the other party's primary for the weaker candidate.

In the end, I couldn't do the last.  It just seemed to dishonest.  I was left with the first two choices.  So the question became, am I more in favor of a candidate, or more against a candidate.  To be honest, without Fred Thompson in the race, I just did not have anyone I was for anymore, but only those I was against to some degree or other, so I voted accordingly.  This felt less like an election than a "reality TV" show.

We'll see how it plays out in the returns.  Either way, I have a bad feeling.  The last time I voted "strategically", my desired outcome did not happen.  I'm prepared to be disappointed this time, too.  If the-guy-who-must-not-be-the-nominee-if-we-are-to-have-any-hope wins his party's nomination, I just don't know what I'll do in the general election.

Unless, of course, he gets smart and picks Fred as his running mate.