David Freddoso on Thompson’s speech in Michigan:

Thompson delivered something that barely resembled an applause line, and suddenly received an incongruous amount of applause. It’s still more proof that the demand for Thompson appears to outstrip the supply. It would be nice to see him speak with a bit more energy.

It is a source of frustration for me that in the area that I thought Thompson would excel he bombs. How is he going to be the spokesman for conservatives if people stop listening because of his delivery? He’s an actor, why can’t he at least act like he’s passionate? He could pretend that he’s a candidate who wanted this his whole life and everything rides on getting this nomination.
This is a concern as well:

In response to questions, he said he had no particular strategy for Michigan, where he is doing well in the polls. Asked how he would fix the state’s high unemployment rate, Mr. Thompson said: “Sound economic policy, low taxes, less regulation.”
Asked what separated him from the rest of the pack, Mr. Thompson said he wasn’t comparing himself for now with his fellow Republican opponents, although he did: “There’ll be opportunities to explain our differences when we have them,” he said, “and we can talk about how long we’ve had the principles that we’re now articulating,” a dig at both Mr. Romney and Rudolph W. Giuliani, who have adjusted their positions on various social issues.

You have no strategy for Michigan? Think it’s just going to happen then? But since he has a southern strategy, I guess it really doesn’t matter:

The Thompson campaign, by contrast, starts from the premise that the unsettled early primary season and the lack of a clear front-runner have created a chaotic race that they can capitalize on, despite a bumpy start that left some Republicans wondering if Mr. Thompson was fully prepared and engaged. Theirs is a “red state” strategy that calls for Mr. Thompson to do well in Republican strongholds in the South and Midwest that are awarded bonus delegates under the rules of the Republican convention.

And this seems pretty smart:

“You’re going to start to see us posing the question: what were you fighting for in 1994 when the Republicans took control of Washington?” said Todd Harris, Mr. Thompson’s communications director, referring to Mr. Thompson’s election to the Senate as part of that year’s Republican landslide. “Were you a foot soldier in the revolution?”
The question, of course, may remind voters that Mr. Giuliani endorsed Mario M. Cuomo, a Democrat and well known liberal, for governor of New York that year, while Mr. Romney ran for the United States Senate in Massachusetts that year as a socially liberal Republican who supported abortion rights and gay rights.
They are betting that even if Mr. Thompson does not do well in Iowa and New Hampshire, where other campaigns have built stronger organizations, strong showings in South Carolina and Florida will position him to do well in the later voting. And they are employing a strategy that takes advantage of Republican convention rules that award extra delegates to states that voted for President Bush last time, or which have Republican governors, senators or state legislatures – states which they see as potential strongholds for Mr. Thompson.

In the NY Times article that I linked to above the only candidates that were featured were the top-tiered candidates. Mike Huckabee is still considered second-tier by the media despite his proclamation.
Update: Another disappointed Fredhead.