David Corn

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.