Sarah Palin's speech deserved rave reviews (for her performance) and scathing rebuttals (for her mugging of facts). Regarding the latter, see AP's brutal run-down and the Anchorage Daily News's fact-checking of her speech.

Her speech was laden with falsehoods. Still, the Hypocrite of the Night award has to go to Rudy Giuliani. He preceded Palin and fired off a slash-and-burn assault on Barack Obama. He blasted Obama as inexperienced and the candidate of Hollywood celebrities and the "left-wing media." He derided Obama for having once been a community organizer, as if that's not a real job. (The GOP delegates, most of them looking rather well-heeled, laughed along.) Giuliani, the former mayor of New York City, also slammed Obama for supposedly thinking that Palin's hometown is "not cosmopolitan enough."

Whoa. Giuliani, the onetime wife-cheater, slapping anyone else for being "cosmopolitan" was absurd. After all, Giuliani used to live with a gay couple in a fancy Upper East Side apartment while he was in the middle of a divorce. It don't get much more "cosmopolitan" than that. He also has dressed in drag more than your average failed presidential candidate.

Giuliani's speech was the pander of the night and a hateful exercise in faux populism. But he sure got into it. Perhaps he wants to be Palin's veep running-mate in 2012.

I'm waiting to get on a conference call with Clinton campaign officials, who, no doubt, will again defend their attacks on Barack Obama by claiming they have no choice but to respond to his criticisms of Hillary and Bill Clinton. But many of their attacks have been disingenuous. On a similar call yesterday, Mark Penn, her chief strategist, blasted Obama for saying as a candidate for the Senate in 2003 that he would not vote for Iraq war funding and then doing so after he entered the Senate. But there's a problem with that shot: as a candidate, Obama never said he would never vote for Iraq war funding; he said he opposed the war spending bill then pending for several reasons. The Clinton camp has legitimate criticism it could toss at Obama. The experience issue is a real one. But the Clinton crowd continues to mix real and phony attacks, pissing off some Democrats but succeeding strategically by keeping Obama bogged down in an acrimonious mudwrestle. I wonder what they'll come up with next. Meanwhile, allow me to cross-post my take on the recent GOP debate, which first appeared on MotherJones.com. Bottom line: they were nice to each other but, boy, did they mug the truth.

At Thursday night's Republican presidential debate, the GOP contenders did their best not to make any news. No one attacked anyone; no one disagreed on any major policy matter--except regarding a proposal to establish a national catastrophic insurance fund that would back up private insurance firms. (Rudy Giuliani, playing to Florida homeowners, voiced his support for it; Mitt Romney supported the general notion; John McCain attacked legislation that would set up such a fund as a $200 billion boondoggle.) Generally, the candidates made up a chorus for tax cuts and fighting--make that, winning--the Iraq war. (Then there was Ron Paul.) At times, the candidates hailed their rivals. It was so.... un-Democratic. No nastiness--even though McCain and Romney, essentially tied for first place in the Florida polls, have been hurling negative ads at each other. (A Romney ad assails McCain for flip-flopping on tax cuts; a McCain spot blasts Romney for...flip-flopping on tax cuts. McCain is actually comparing Romney to John Kerry.)

If you were forced to pick a winner--and in the absence of policy disputes, the debate was all about the horse race--you'd probably have to choose Romney, who seemed quasi-commanding and who this night, for some reason, looked more like Hollywood's idea of a president than usual. But no candidate hurt his own prospects. That doesn't mean, though, they didn't come out with some whoppers. Here's a sampling:

* Moderator Tim Russert asked McCain about a comment McCain had supposedly made--"I know a lot less about economics than I do about military and foreign policy issues; I still need to be educated"--and McCain shot back, "I don't know where you got that quote from; I'm very well-versed in economics." Well, McCain did tell the Baltimore Sun, "The issue of economics is something that I've really never understood as well as I should." So much for being "well-versed."

* Asked whether it was un-American for U.S. banks to seek infusions of billions of dollars in capital from foreign sources, Giuliani said there was nothing wrong with that as long as "they're transparent." Giuliani, though, still refuses to be transparent about his own multi-million-dollar business dealings, declining to release information about the clients and foreign officials he has worked with as a consultant.

* McCain said that the invasion of Iraq was justified because Saddam Hussein was "hell-bent on acquiring" weapons of mass destruction. Actually, he wasn't. Saddam might have desired WMDs. But for years prior to the invasion, the Iraqi dictator had suspended his WMD program and done nothing to pursue WMDs, according to the final report of Charles Duelfer and his Iraq Survey Group.

* Mike Huckabee, voicing his support for Bush's invasion of Iraq, said that just because the United States didn't find WMDs in Iraq that "doesn't mean it wasn't there." The aforementioned Duelfer report--and Duelfer took over the Iraq Survey Group as a hawk who had believed Saddam possessed WMDs--made it clear that Saddam not only had no weapons in the years leading up to the war, he had no WMD program. In other words, there were no WMDs to be found in Iraq--period.

* Romney praised Bush for mounting the Iraq war and making sure al Qaeda could not gain "a safe haven" in Iraq "for launching attacks against us." That was certainly not an issue prior to the invasion. Saddam had no operational ties with al Qaeda. And now there's little, if any chance, that the small and unpopular al Qaeda outfit in Iraq could take over Iraq, pushing aside the Shiites, the Sunnis, and the Kurds.

* Romney claimed that under Hillary Clinton's universal health care proposal, everybody will get their coverage "from the government." Here's how Clinton describes it: "If you have a plan you like, you keep it. If you want to change plans or aren't currently covered, you can choose from dozens of the same plans available to members of Congress, or you can opt into a public plan option like Medicare." That's not a government-only plan.

* Huckabee said that Americans "ought to be able to respect people who don't have any [faith]." Yet in a book he co-wrote in 1998, Huckabee huffed, "Men who have rejected God and do not walk in faith are more often than not immoral, impure, and improvident (Gal. 5:19-21). They are prone to extreme and destructive behavior, indulging in perverse vices and dissipating sensuality (1 Cor. 6:9-10)." That just doesn't come across as a respectful attitude regarding people who don't have faith.

But the candidates sure did behave nicely.

Will the GOP debate in Des Moines this afternoon and the Democratic face-off tomorrow in Iowa--the final candidate get-togethers before Iowans caucus--be free-for-alls? Each will be the last time the aspirants have the opportunity to directly challenge rivals before voters start to vote. One can make the case that Hillary Clinton, say, should go for the jugular and slam Barack Obama before he surges past her. Or...that she shouldn't. After all, she's a more sympathetic figure when she's being attacked. And will John Edwards and/or Obama take a powerful swing at her jaw and see if it is made of glass? Remember, though, Iowans tend not to like dustups, and they sometimes do punish candidates who go too negative.

As for the GOP debate, I previewed it here and wondered if it could turn into a theological smackdown, given the recent religious tussle between Mitt Romney and Mike Huckabee. Democrats can only pray that the two get into a nasty fight over whether or not Mormons believe that Jesus was the brother of Satan?

Meanwhile, Rudy Giuliani will have to try to address his slipping poll numbers. He's still ahead nationally, but a Washington Post/ABC News poll released yesterday shows Giuliani losing almost one quarter of his support among likely Republican voters in the last month--with Huckabee more than doubling his following and moving into second place. (Romney ticked up a few points, and the two disappointing senators--Fred Thompson and John McCain--each lost about a quarter of their support.)

UPDATE: There were no explosions--theological or otherwise--at the GOP debate this afternoon. In fact, it was rather sedate. I explain here.

Just two days ago, I suggested that Giuliani's support had nowhere to go but down. That's what's happening. And there's still room for further deterioration. At least so says a former Giuliani business associate. This person, a Republican who's not supporting anyone in the race, tells me that he believes Giuliani's consulting firm may be the weakest of the several Achilles heels on the Body Giuliani:

The public still doesn't know all the stuff there is to know about Giuliani--especially his business. This is his general business model: pay me $10 million and you get to say you know me. That's what he does. And I think most Americans are going to think this is kind of shifty and not exactly right. And they're not going to go for his bare-knuckles approach to...just about everything.

And then there's his wife. This person says that Judith Nathan Giuliani sat in on every business meeting he attended with Giuliani. She didn't say anything. She just was there. It was "a little creepy," says this source.

As I noted, those nice Iowans usually don't fancy nasty political attacks. But desparate times lead to desparate measures--and every leading GOP candidate, save Huckabee, has plenty of reason to feel pretty desperate these days.

Let us now give thanks to Rudy Giuliani for causing the introduction of a vitally important issue into Campaign 2008: Secret Service protection for presidential mistresses. On Meet the Press on Sunday, uber-host Tim Russert asked the former NYC mayor if it would be "appropriate for a president to provide Secret Service protection for his mistress." Giuliani waffled, saying it "would not be appropriate" but then explained why it had been appropriate for New York's finest to protect his mistress when he was mayor, suggesting it could be justifiable for the Secret Service to safeguard a presidential gal-pal (or guy-pal).

I'm relatively certain this is not the sort of stuff Giuliani expected he'd be discussing when he entered the race. And it's indicative of a problem facing his campaign: he doesn't do well on what I call the Ten Second Test.

For many Republican primary voters, Giuliani probably does fare rather well in the first ten seconds they think about him: America's Mayor, Mr. Tough Guy, the fella who seemed courageous and in command on September 11 (when the national commander-in-chief was playing hopscotch on Air Force One). But most of the information a GOPer obtains about Giuliani after that first consideration is not (on a Republican scale) positive. On key social issues, he's closer to Hillary Clinton than George Bush. Regarding his actual record on 9/11, there are rescue workers, emergency management specialists, and fire fighters who decry his actions and undermine his main sales pitch. His business clients? Giuliani has worked with government officials in the Middle East connected to al Qaeda and with an international gambling venture that included a partner linked to the regime of Kim Jong Il and international organized crime. (Does Jack Bauer know about this?) There's also Giuliani's promotion of his once-close friend, the now-indicted Bernard Kerik, and, to top it off, a personal life that even O.J. Simpson wouldn't want. (Can you imagine a family in which a son opposes the possible presidency of his father? Oh yeah, the Reagans.)

So Giuliani, in terms of how he's seen by a GOP voter, starts out at a high level--perhaps close to the ceiling for his potential support. But he has far more room to fall than to rise.

New Yorkers know much of the it-ain't-pretty nitty-gritty about Giuliani--and so do all those NYC media-types who have been covering and chattering about him for years. But even this far into the campaign, there likely are plenty of Republican primary voters--and certainly plenty of those non-party-minded voters who only bother with general elections--who have not boned up on Giuliani. When they learn more, how will they regard the man who has to explain why his mistress needed security?

Now for the counterargument. Can Giuliani win? In this GOP contest, anything is possible. (Yes, even John McCain has reason to hope.) And if Giuliani should somehow bulldoze his way past the social conservatives and snatch the GOP nomination, he might go on to become America's Margaret Thatcher. She once seemed an improbable leader of England, scorned by foes as "Attila the Hen." But in the late 1970s, she became England's iron-handed nanny and held the post for 11 years. Many in England obviously yearned for a toughie--and that was long before 9/11. These days, perhaps American voters will overlook Giuliani's corruptions and peccadilloes and be swayed by his whatever-it-takes-to-protect-us swagger. There are many corrupt mayors and governors who have been elected to office because voters cared about something other than cleanliness. Voters could well go for Giuliani's bark and ignore his self-inflicted bites. If so, politicians who worry about the security of their mistresses will have reason to be grateful.

WHERE'S HILLARY? Is it a coincidence that in the wake of Hurricane Oprah sweeping through Iowa, South Carolina and New Hampshire, Hillary Clinton is not campaigning Monday or Tuesday in any of these states? In fact, shes in California with a very, very light public schedule (only one public event), according to an email sent out by her campaign. Waiting for the storm to blow over? My theory: she wants to avoid getting into any sort of fight with the Diva of All Entertainment. That would be good for ratings--but not for the Clinton campaign.

Who's afraid of Mike Huckabee? Well, apparently Fred Thompson is.

As D-Day in Iowa approaches, anxiety waxes and knives are being sharpened within the campaign HQs of assorted Republican presidential wannabes. Some group in New Hampshire days ago was push-polling (calling potential voters and reminding them that Mitt Romney is a Mormon). The Fred Thompson and John McCain campaigns quickly decried this underhanded move, and the culprit remains a mystery. (Hmmm, were they too quick to denounce the tactic? Then again, why was Rudy Giuliani not as quick as they were to attack these unnamed attackers?) But after expressing dismay at the push-polling, Thompson's campaign on Sunday zapped out not one but two emails kneeing Huckabee in the groin (metaphorically, that is).

Shortly after Huckabee, the former Arkansas governor, appeared on Fox News Sunday, Thompson's lieutenants dashed off a press release claiming that Huckabee, a Baptist minister, had misled Fox News's Chris Wallace. A sample:

Huckabee Claim: "We didn't raise [taxes] on nursing home patients. That was a quality assurance fee."

Fact: Fred Thompson can "play up his 100% pro-life voting record and his 0% Planned Parenthood score. Sometimes it's just plain hard to argue with the numbers." (David Brody, "Fred Thompson's Pro-Life Strategy," Christian Broadcasting Network, 6/15/07)

And so on....

Thompson's communications guys were working overtime on the Sabbath, for they also dispatched an email dissing Huckabee and Chuck Norris, the action-movie star. The Huckabee campaign had just released a new ad featuring Norris. One of my Mother Jones colleagues calls the spot "the greatest political advertisement of all time." That might be a slight overstatement. But it is a doozy. (You can see it here.) In the ad, Norris and Huckabee trade off remarks about the other. Huckabee's are supposed to be wry ("my plan to secure the border: two words--Chuck Norris"); Norris plays it straight ("Mike Huckabee is a lifelong hunter who will protect our Second Amendment rights...Mike Huckabee wants to put the I.R.S. out of business").

The ad is on the silly side. But for the Thompson campaign it's as serious as...well, his pathetic poll numbers in Iowa and New Hampshire. Thompson's communications director Todd Harris felt compelled to proclaim:

With his new campaign ad featuring Chuck Norris, Mike Huckabee has confused celebrity endorsement with serious policy. What would Huckabee do to secure America's border against millions of illegal immigrants pouring into our country? According to his ad, "Two words: Chuck Norris."

It's appropriate that Chuck Norris would co-star in an ad with Mike Huckabee, given Huckabee has been Missing in Action" on the issue of illegal immigration his entire career. As governor of Arkansas, Huckabee called supporters of a bill that would forbid voting rights for illegal immigrants "racist" and "bigots." Huckabee's position on immigration is closer to Ted Kennedy than to conservatives.

What a sign that Huckabee, the potential sleeper of the year, is gaining traction: the only movie actor in the race is worried about him--and overreacting. But in the two most recent polls in Iowa, Huckabee placed second (at 24 and 18 percent), while Thompson was either tied for third (at 11 percent) or in fourth (at 10 percent). And in the most recent survey of New Hampshire Republicans, Huckabee was in fifth place (at 6 percent) yet ahead of Thompson in sixth place (5 percent). It appears that Thompson, adopting a NASCAR strategy, believes he has to take out the car in front of him before zooming onward--and that driver is Huckabee.

Mitt Romney also is worried about this accelerating social con. Romney recently slammed Huckabee for having supported a proposal in Arkansas to provide college scholarships to the children of illegal immigrants. Huckabee, bless him, fired back, "I guess Mitt Romney would rather keep people out of college so they can keep working on his lawn."

The GOP race is turning into a circular firing squad. There are several in-the-hunt contenders, and the dynamics of the race keep shifting. Remember when a guy named John McCain was the favorite? For a while, the main action seemed to be the mudwrestle between the Giuliani and Romney camps. Now Huckabee is fielding the most hits. Last week, the politerati (myself included) wondered how nasty Barack Obama and John Edwards would get in taking on Hillary Clinton. The answer provided by last Thursday's debate: not as nasty as anticipated. Expect the Republicans to get more down and dirty (and desperate) in the days--and debates--ahead.

I can see the ad:

Would you vote for a political candidate who said that Christians not in his church were following 'the spirit of the Antichrist'? Of course not. Now, what would you vote for a candidate who eagerly accepted the endorsement of someone who said that?

Or a press conference in which Rudy Giuliani is asked:

* Do you believe Episcopalians, Presbyterians and Methodists represent the spirit of the Antichrist?

* Do you believe liberal Jews are mounting an ongoing attempt to undermine the public strength of Christianity?

* Do you believe Hinduism is devil worship?

For Pat Robertson has indeed said all of that. (I've placed his actual quotes in italics.)

Robertson's endorsement of Giuliani is a perfect marriage of expedience--and it showed that neither fellow will let principle get in the way of politics. You know the drill. Giuliani supports gay rights and even used to--gasp!--live with a gay couple. Robertson considers homosexuality a deadly sin and once said that God directed a hurricane at Orlando and Disney World to punish both for permitting Gay Days at the theme park. Giuliani favors abortion rights. Robertson believes abortion is mass-murder (and that God, because he was pissed off at abortion in America, allowed 9/11 to happen). And there's more; Giuliani was mayor of a diverse metropolis. Robertson is a bigot and, to be blunt, nuts. As I detailed here, in addition to crudely denigrating religions other than his own, Robertson has peddled absurd, theology-driven conspiracy theories. In 1992, he wrote a book claiming that there was a global plot of elites to create a one-world government that would wipe out Christianity and that Satan, naturally, was behind this secret scheme. One prominent actor in this conspiracy: President George H.W. Bush. I kid you not.

So Giuliani is welcoming the support of a fellow who's view of global politics is about as reality-based as that of Lyndon LaRouche. (And I'm not even bothering with Robertson's shady business dealings. Anyone who was tight with Bernard Kerik cannot be expected to be vigilant about such matters.)

This partnership shows that neither man really cares about the core issues. Robertson equates abortion with murder, but he's willing to help an abortion-enabler become president. Giuliani says he is concerned about the troubles of gay Americans, but he's willing to get in bed with a fellow who believes homosexuals are an abomination (and are coming for your children!). Sure, politics is often about bridging differences. But when a politico abandons a foundational position, it tells you he or she is not to be trusted.

This move could prove to be trouble for both. Robertson looks pretty craven in signing up with Giuliani. And other social conservative leaders are not going to let this pass quietly. My favorite email of Wednesday came from a religious right group called Campaign for Children and Families:

Campaign for Children and Families (CCF), a leading West Coast pro-family organization, condemns the selling out of family values in the U.S. presidential race by national pro-family leaders, such as Pat Robertson, who today endorsed liberal Republican candidate Rudy Giuliani.

It's well known in New York City that former mayor Rudy Giuliani marched in "lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender" parades, held "lesbian and gay pride breakfasts" at Gracie Mansion, dressed up several times as a woman, led the hijacking of marriage rights at New York City Hall, and personally demeaned marriage by divorcing his first two wives and committing adultery.

Yes, you should fear lesbian-pride flapjacks.

Certainly, CCF is no major mover in the conservative movement. But if I were James Dobson, the Focus on the Family leader and bigtime social con, I'd be saying, "Now, here's an opportunity...." Robertson's slice of the Christian right--once known as the mighty Christian Coalition--has been withering for years. This desperate attempt to get on board with a winner (who's no Mormon) may end up being the self-inflicted wound that takes Robertson out of the game.

As for Mr. 9/11, good luck now persuading moderate suburban voters in Ohio you're not in league with yahoo conservatives who care more about creationism than education, who would rather round up gays than lower greenhouse gas emissions.

The Robertson endorsement discredits both endorser and endorsee. Liberals, Democrats, and secularists ought to thank God for it.

DREAM ON. Richard Whalen, my fellow CQ blogger, keeps pining for the perfect candidate to enter the 2008 race. First, it was retired John Abizaid. More recently, it's Michael Bloomberg. Yet Bloomberg has said he's not interested in running. And I believe him for one simple reason: this fellow has said virtually nothing about what promises to be the primary issue of the general election--the Iraq war. Currently, the war is not defining the election. The leading Democrats agree that the war should be ended. The leading Republicans back the present course. So there's not been much debate within each of the parties' presidential contests (despite Dennis Kucinich's and Ron Paul's best efforts).

But after the nominees become clear, the war will likely become the number-one fight of the campaign. And what would Bloomberg's position be? Would he take a stand: leave Iraq or stay there? If he choses one stance or the other, he will divide that vote. But could he straddle the two sides? That could be tough task, policy-wise and politically. The fact that Bloomberg so far has no clear policy regarding Iraq signals he's not seriously pondering a run. Whalen should find someone else to dream of.