He realizes the value of the Internet and what a great tool it is to get out his message and to respond to critics. He’s not above the fray like Bush is and he doesn’t talk at you like Clinton (the senator, not the ex-president). When his position is criticized as it was by Ramesh Ponnuru, he responds and gives his side of the argument:

On April 20, Ramesh Ponnuru penned an article called “Thompson’s Tort Trouble.” While he referenced my conservative voting, record he took issue with two instances when I voted against “tort reform.” He noted my stand on federalist grounds but thinks I must have a mistaken view of Federalism and that conservatives may want to ask me a few hard questions.
This hardly constitutes the stuff of a major dispute, but I would submit that the problem is not so much my mistaken view of Federalism as much as it is his lack of commitment to the principle. This presents conservatives with an opportunity to have a much needed discussion.

This is exactly what I said yesterday, he is the one being consistent and I love that about him. I want a president guided by principle, not what he thinks the public wants. The president is a leader not a consensus builder (though he does need to do that in some circumstances), he sways the public to his way of thinking, that is what we need today in a president.
You can tell that he gets that the Republicans have lost their way and need someone to lead them back to what made them distinct from the Democrats:

This discussion is not an idle exercise. Republicans have struggled in recent years, because they have strayed from basic principles. Federalism is one of those principles. It is something we all give lip service to and then proceed to ignore when it serves our purposes. During my eight years in the Senate, I tried to adhere to this principle. For me it was a lodestar. Not only was it what our founding fathers created ” a federal government with limited, enumerated powers with respect for other levels of government, it also provided a basis for a proper analysis of most issues: “Is this something government should be doing? If so, at what level of government?”
As I understood it, states were supposed to be laboratories that would compete with each other, conducting civic experiments according to the wishes of their citizens. The model for federal welfare reform was the result of that process. States also allow for of diverse viewpoints that exist across the country. There is no reason that Tennesseans and New Yorkers should have to agree on everything (and they don’t).

Go read the whole thing, it’s excellent.