There's a limit as to how much of a candidate's distant past should be held against them today. I have enough trouble finding things to admire in most people currently seeking high office without dragging in the scummy thing someone did in 1973 or whenever. On the other hand, it doesn't reflect well on the present-day human being when they attempt to mispresent or otherwise fib about past indiscretions and deeds. Which brings us to Fred Thompson. As you may know, I'm a major wallower in Watergate, still utterly fascinated with almost every aspect of what some thought would be a major shift in the tone and ethics of American politics. It wasn't. About the only lessons that came out of it were "Don't get caught" and the rarely-heeded "The cover-up is worse than the crime."
Fred Thompson was the Senate Watergate Committee minority counsel. Nothing wrong with that. Somebody had to defend Richard Nixon in that venue. But it long ago struck me that once Nixon went down, a lot of folks who'd been fervently taking his side and branding the opposition as partisan witch-hunters suddenly began taking credit for leading that witch-hunt in the first place. And there was Thompson at the head of the pack, pretending he'd only been after the truth and had helped bring it out. This recent article pretty well summarizes the revisionism.
I have little enthusiasm for any of the announced candidates for president and the lowest regard for those who seem unlikely to start undoing the damage of Bush-Cheney. So that puts Thompson way down on my list to begin with. Nothing I've seen of the man lately has changed that. He seems to think it doesn't matter what you say or what you believe as long as you're glib and you sound presidential about it. As with many a Democratic candidate, I think his current high standing in the polls is a function not of how much is known about him but how little. I don't know why we don't all just do what most of us would really like: Elect "None of the above."