Trailhead: A campaign blog.

Rudy's Gamble

This election cycle has seen its conventional wisdom bonfires. Hillary’s inevitability: gone. Obama’s insurmountable lead in New Hampshire: gone. McCain’s summer of death: long gone. But the most brazen assault on the most conventional wisdom of all—Giuliani’s decision to neglect the early states—has failed miserably.

There were moments when the gamble didn’t seem insane. At one point, Rudy commanded a strong lead nationally and in Florida, which he called his “firewall.” After Huckabee surged last minute and won Iowa, anything was possible. McCain’s win in New Hampshire and Romney’s victory in Michigan didn’t exactly discredit Giuliani’s strategy either. As Slate’s John Dickerson wrote at the time, “the GOP primary is starting to look like a Pee Wee soccer tournament: Everyone gets a trophy!” Of course Rudy would get his!

The theory started to crack after Michigan, when Giuliani’s numbers began sliding nationally and in Florida. By the time both Romney and McCain snapped up two more trophies, Rudy was all but forgotten. His “slow and steady wins the race” philosophy crumbled when it turned out he was actually just slow. 

So does this reaffirm the rule that you have to win Iowa or New Hampshire to win the nomination? Or was this a worthwhile gamble that didn’t pan out? I’d argue the former. If there was a year to take the risk, it was this one—the chaotic nature of the contest appeared to reward patience. And if there was a person who could pull it off, it was Rudy. He had the national stature to survive without boosts from the earliest states, and Florida is big enough that a win there would have reset the game. All the pieces were there. People are now saying that Rudy did poorly in Florida because he spent so much time there. Either that or, much as we hate to admit it, the conventional wisdom was correct.

And They Said Rudy Wasn’t Trying in New Hampshire

Sometimes it seems like the campaigns have an unofficial contest to see who can place their signs in the most unlikely/dangerous places.  

I spotted three Rudy Giuliani signs in a row, planted in the snow on the median of a four-lane highway here. (Wish I had a photo--but it would just be a blur.) That means a volunteer had to either place the signs at 3 a.m. or sprint across four lanes of traffic. Either way, that’s devotion.

Who Cares About the Orange Bowl?

Months before caucus mania descended on the country, various story lines were floated by the political media to try and create a little drama. But now that the caucuses are upon us, it's worth a look back at the story fads that turned out to be useless.

• The early caucus: Not too long ago, Iowa, New Hampshire, Michigan, Nevada, South Carolina, and Florida all competed in an arms race to be one of the first primaries in the nation. But now it's Jan. 3, and Iowa and New Hampshire are still voting first, albeit a few weeks earlier than usual. Big whoop. We should have trusted in some political form of game theory all along. Russell Crowe John Nash has New Hampshire's back.
• Organge Bowl: Pundits also decried a Jan. 3 caucus date because they thought Iowans wouldn't caucus if the Orange Bowl was on at the same time. Considering candidates' turnout models are inching higher and higher, that seems like hogwash. Plus, who wants to watch Virginia Tech and Kansas in Florida? (Besides Rudy Giuliani.)
• Fund raising: Unbeknownst to everybody (except Ron Paul supporters), the fourth fund-raising quarter ended at midnight on New Year's Eve. But the media barely cared. That's because the fund-raising story lines—while somewhat insightful—are created mainly so the media have something to write about in the dog days of the campaign. Now that there are real stories involving real votes, the media have turned their back on their former muse. Moreover, candidates have barely mentioned their fourth-quarter hauls, in fear that the media will care if their opponents subsequently one-up them.
• Giuliani vs. Romney: The Republican race used to be the Romniani show, yet both of the candidates are hobbling into the primaries. Romney and Giuliani used to bicker with each other over taxes, line-item vetoes, and immigration at the debates. But looking back on it, that was all a red herring. At this point, it's more likely that one of them will ask the other to be his VP. Now, Romney and Giuliani will only go head to head if both candidates can last through Florida and Feb. 5, a scenario that's only possible if Romney wins Iowa and Giuliani stays relevant.

Meet the Kamikaze

For weeks Mike Huckabee has avoided Tim Russert while touring the Sunday-morning talk-show circuit. NBC’s Washington bureau chief has lobbied hard to get Huckabee on Meet the Press, but Huckabee has shied away from Russert’s withering Q&A.

Until now. Huckabee is going live on the show this Sunday (as is Barack Obama), four days before the Iowa caucuses. His comments with Russert will likely be his final narrative before Iowans vote, so his appearance is a major gamble. If Russert lands a few blows—which, with Huckabee’s record, is likely—the always-fluid Republican race will be shaken and stirred once again. A preemptive look at who has the most at stake.

WINNERS

Mitt Romney: Romney’s Iowa staffers must be salivating in anticipation. Romney survived Russert’s barrage relatively well (only his Martin Luther King comments have come back to bite him), and it’s likely that Russert will push Huckabee on many of the attack points Romney uses against the Huckster. Russert then becomes the attack dog, which legitimizes Romney's criticism and makes him less of a meanie.

Russert’s research staff: Talk about rich source material. Just some of the juicy topics from Huckabee’s past: the Wayne Dumond case, in-state tuition, questionable promotions, the Club for Growth’s scorn, a pro-Huckabee group's dirty tricks, borderline-morbid Huckabeeisms, and a quarantine for people with AIDS.

Huckabee’s ego:  How many televangelists-in-the-making don’t love a national audience?

LOSERS

Huckabee’s political chances: In the media world, Huckabee has reached the point of diminishing returns. The potential negatives of Sunday’s interview far outweigh the positives. Media sharks are going to be circling their TVs, waiting for the slightest hint of weakness from Huckabee. Once Russert draws blood, every Huckabee story for four days is going to mention his MTP appearance. Will those stories enter the caucus-goer zeitgeist? Romney and Fred Thompson will make sure they do.

Even if Huckabee breezes through the interview, what does that prove? We already know he can hang with the big boys, so he no longer needs street cred among Beltway elites. He needs an organization on the ground, something Russert can’t provide.

John McCain and Rudy Giuliani: Both of them need a weakened Romney to stumble out of Iowa, which means they need Huckabee to hold strong. If Romney wins Iowa, he’ll likely win New Hampshire, therefore dooming McCain. With a win in New Hampshire, he’ll stay strong through Feb. 5, hurting Giuliani.

Full Frontal

America has a tradition of waging wars on two fronts. First there were the European and Pacific fronts during WWII. In the '60s and '70s, the United States attacked communism overtly in Vietnam and covertly in Latin America. And these days, we're fighting the war on terrorism in both Iraq and Afghanistan.

Now the candidates are following suit. Democrats and Republicans have opened several two-front wars during the campaign. A breakdown of the most recent tactical gambles, and what they're risking:

Obama attacks Clinton and Edwards: A few days ago, Barack Obama started critiquing John Edwards' anti-lobby stance to compete for second-choice votes. Additionally, Obama and Clinton continue to butt heads over health care, electability, and experience.

Going after Clinton and Edwards at the same time may leave Obama open to claims that he is overly aggressive. He is essentially a front-runner in Iowa, and attacking Edwards could only embolden Biden, Richardson, and Dodd voters to flock toward the besieged underdog. 

Clintonites attack Obama: Bill Clinton blasted Obama in an appearance on The Charlie Rose Show, Bill Shaheen rehashed Obama's drug use, and Bob Kerrey blew on the embers of those pesky Muslim rumors.

Hillary? She stays silent. On paper, this strategy seems to insulate her from any criticism, since her proxies are doing the work for her. But the Shaheen imbroglio showed how quickly scandals can jump the barrier and start affecting Hillary's image, as well. 

Romney attacks Huckabee and Giuliani: Mitt Romney and Rudy Giuliani have been trading barbs since the early days of the campaign, at no cost to Romney in the early primary states. But since Mike Huckabee's ascendance, Romney has had to fight Huckabee in Iowa and Giuliani elsewhere, which has driven down his poll numbers in Iowa and kept him stagnant nationwide.

Romney's troubles are the most foreboding for Obama and Clinton. Romney has been forced to peddle two different messages to two different audiences—Iowans and Americans—while watching his Iowa numbers drop. Attacking a nice guy like Huckabee is very different than attacking a liberally conservative hawk like Giuliani. The more messages a campaign has to churn out, the more strained its resources are. Sometimes scattering your attention can leave an opening for another challenger. Just ask John Edwards, circa 2004, or John McCain, circa 2008.

Holiday Ads: Obama Plays Nice, Santa Endorses Rudy

Now that Mike Huckabee set the tone with his Jesus-invoking, subliminal cross-including Christmas ad, everyone else is climbing aboard.

Barack Obama’s holiday spot plants him and his family in front of a roaring hearth and a giant Christmas tree. No Muslim prayer mats here! After a few platitudes about family and friendship, Obama gives his daughters, Malia and Sasha, a chance to say “Merry Christmas” and “Happy Holidays.” Like Huckabee, Obama goes easy on the policy.

Rudy Giuliani, meanwhile, isn’t afraid of talking shop. In one new spot, he sports a bright red sweater vest and promises to give all Americans the “same gift: A safe America. Lower taxes. Secure borders. Job growth. Fiscal discipline. Strict constructionist judges.” Something tells me Giuliani really would enjoy coming downstairs to find Antonin Scalia curled up under his tree.

A second ad has Giuliani wishing for all those same things, and hoping that all the candidates could just get along. At which point Santa, who was sitting there the whole time, interjects: “Ho, ho, ho, ho. I was with you right up until that last one. Ho, ho, ho, ho, ho.” Santa endorsing the politics of personal destruction: this really is a special election. 

UPDATE 11:28 a.m.: Now Huckabee is claiming the "floating cross," which looks like a window pane, was actually "a bookshelf." Or at least that's what he told Joe Scarborough. He added that "if you play the spot backwards, it says 'Paul is dead, Paul is dead.' "

UPDATE 1:46 p.m.: A reader points out, what's with the "Merry Christmas" AND "Happy Holidays"? Come on, Rudy. That's the kind of fence-sitting you'd expect from a Clinton holiday ad.

UPDATE 3:11 p.m.: John Edwards arrives fashionably late.

UPDATE 5:04 p.m.: Hillary's video: Like Rudy's, but classier.

Rudy to Voters: Git-R-Done

At his anticipated "Tested. Ready. Now" speech in Tampa on Saturday, Rudy Giuliani offered a refrain practically lifted from Larry the Cable Guy:

We’re at war. The American people want to see victory in Iraq and Afghanistan, not humiliation and defeat. They want their children to live free from the fear of Islamic terrorism. They’re telling us: Get it done. And we will.

He repeats that phrase three more times. A last minute pander to the NASCAR vote?

Rudy Bling

Never accuse Rudy Giuliani of failing to keep it real. They should do a two-for-one with temporary tattoos of Rudy's face. Get yours here. 

This actually reminds me of one of my favorite Giuliani-themed rap lyrics, from the song "Rise of the Machines" by Jedi Mind Tricks: "They call me Kublain Khan, ready for war with a Ruger 9 / I'm ready with a machete for Rudy Giulian."

Romney campaign theme song?

Image from Rudy 2008 Store.

Debating the Boring Stuff

Before the debate, I cobbled together a list of things to expect, all of which predicted that the candidates would be looking to draw contrasts three weeks before the caucus. Boy was I was wrong. The only fireworks were between Fred Thompson and the debate's moderator, Carolyn Washburn.

That's what happens when you suck immigration and terrorism from the agenda. Right off the top, Washburn declared that she would avoid those topics because Iowans wanted to hear about issues that hadn't been widely discussed. But in a state where 63 percent of likely Republican caucus-goers think immigration is very important and 66 percent say the same about Iraq—according to the latest Newsweek poll (PDF)—it seemed odd to prevent the Republicans from talking about what the people want to hear about. 

Instead we got a moribund discussion of economic policy. Granted, 64 percent of likely caucus-goers care about the economy, but today's discussion didn't go into details. Candidates talked about fixing the deficit, repairing American industries, and making President Bush's tax cuts permanent, but we didn't hear how they would do these things. In the past, Giuliani and Romney have had fun drawing minute distinctions between their tax plans, but this is no longer a Romniani race. In Iowa, Mike Huckabee is the big fish, yet nobody scuffed up his fair tax plan.

On climate change, McCain—who is the most visionary on green energy among the Republicans—was one of the first to respond, so the rest just aped his plan. Not exactly illuminating. 

The Republicans are most comfortable speaking about their platforms and drawing distinctions when they're talking about issues they can rally their base behind. That means national security, the war on terrorism, and securing the border. Without those issues on the table, we weren't left with much to get worked up about. Neither were the candidates.

Rudy on Financial Ties to Hugo Chavez: Ha!

So Rudy Giuliani survived his Meet the Press interrogation Sunday. Moderator Tim Russert needled all the mayor’s tender spots: Giuliani’s hiring of Bernie Kerik as police commissioner, ties between Giuliani’s firm and Qatar, his decision to assign a security detail to protect Judith Nathan when they started dating in 2000. But Rudy weathered the barrage with a defense mechanism reminiscent of Hillary’s Sunday media blitz a few months ago: laughing.

At one point during the hourlong interview, Russert pointed out that Giuliani’s firm has represented Venezuelan-owned oil company Citgo and asked why he would work for a company tied to Hugo Chavez. Giuliani practically broke down giggling. “That’s a stretch,” he said, before clapping his hands and chuckling some more. Russert continued, “These are all accusations being made in a very serious way …” “They’re not serious,” Giuliani said, grinning. (Watch the exchange here, around the five-minute mark. Transcript here.)

Rudy’s laughter doesn’t quite match the enthusiasm of Hillary’s notorious “cackle,” but it’s still telling. TNR’s Michael Crowley has a piece on Giuliani’s comedian persona, in which he notes a determination to replace the “nasty man” image with the “sunnier side of Rudy.” But somehow the cheeriness manages to appear during uncomfortable moments, making them even more so. Russert pushed Rudy hard on his firm’s oil ties, as if to stoke the mayor’s legendary temper. It’s not a funny question. But laughter was his only option. It didn’t diffuse the question entirely, a la Huckabee on Jesus. But you’re a lot better off with YouTube videos that show you laughing than screaming.

More on Rudy's Revisionism

Quick follow-up to our earlier item about Giuliani's new ad, in which he discusses the Iranian hostage crisis. He omits his usual line about the mullahs looking into Ronald Reagan's eyes in 1981 and releasing the American hostages they had held for 444 days. But he still implies that the Iranians released them out of fear or respect for Reagan.

Giuliani is right when he says that "[t]he one hour in which they released them was the one hour in which Ronald Reagan was taking the Oath of Office as President of the United States.” The events were happening simultaneously. But he has been wrong to suggest that this had anything to do with Reagan. If anything, the Iranians were just waiting for Carter to leave.

Politico's Jonathan Martin pointed this out earlier this year, quoting Mark Bowden's 2006 book "Guests of the Ayatollah": All of the hostage takers I interviewed said that the decision to wait until Carter officially left office was deliberate, a final insult to the man they had propped up as the representative of the devil on earth.

The implication that the Gipper somehow struck fear into their hearts and thus provoked the hostages' release is borderline preposterous. Amazon.com yields another interesting tidbit from the same book: The Iranians guarding the hostages weren't scared of Reagan -- they wanted him to win: They were convinced that anyone other than Carter would understand their reasons for seizing the embassy and would admit the great wrongs America had committed in Iran. (p. 554)

Not to mention that hostage negotiations had begun under Carter, that Iraq's invasion of Iran forced their hand, and that Iran-affiliated Islamists continued to kidnap Americans left and right throughout the 1980s. Surely they had looked into Reagan's eyes too, right?

To his credit, Giuliani was careful to back up his facts this time around. In previous ads, such as this one about health care, he played more than a little fast and loose with statistics. Maybe he omitted the "eyes" line because he knew he would get this sort of response. But the causal implication is still there. He takes the fact  of the simultaneous inauguration/hostage release and uses it to bolster a myth. Unfortunately, it's not one that any of his opponents are about to call him out on. 

Reagan's Eyes

Giuliani has a new ad running in New Hampshire in which he tells one of his favorite anecdotes. When Ronald Reagan was sworn in as president, Iranian mullahs had been holding American hostages for 444 days. “The one hour in which they released them was the one hour in which Ronald Reagan was taking the oath of office as president of the United States,” Giuliani says in the spot. The story makes regular appearances in Rudy’s stump speeches. But there’s one line that didn’t make it into the ad.

"They looked in Ronald Reagan's eyes and in two minutes they released the hostages," Rudy said at a GOP debate in May. "They obviously saw something different in the eyes of Ronald Reagan than in the eyes of Jimmy Carter," he told a New Hampshire audience in October.

It always struck me as one of Rudy’s cheesier lines, but it’s also a big part of his pitch: The difference between a leader and a slacker is ineffable. Either you are one or you aren’t. It wasn’t the death of the Shah in July 1980 that led to the hostages’ release. It wasn’t the invasion of Iran by Iraq that fall, which made the prospect of ticking off the United States less appealing. Nor was it the Algerian-brokered hostage negotiations, arranged before Reagan took office, that solved the crisis. It was the look in Reagan’s eyes.

Because it's not about diplomatic skills or military prowess. It's about who can beat Bin-Laden in a stare-down.

Winners and Losers of the National Intelligence Estimate

The National Intelligence Estimate reported yesterday that Iran isn't pursuing the nukes the Bush administration once thought they were. Predictably, the candidates quickly blasted out statements celebrating the news. But politically, not all of the candidates should be ecstatic.

LOSERS

Rudy Giuliani: Rudy's foreign-policy platform is based on "staying on offense" against terrorists, a category into which he often lumps Iran's government and military. Giuliani has a stable of neocon foreign-policy advisers, including Norman Podhoretz, who tried to convince President Bush to bomb Iran. As Fred Kaplan noted yesterday, staying on offense against Iran might not be such a great idea if they don't have any bombs.

John McCain: "Bomb bomb bomb, bomb bomb Iran" isn't going to shoot up the Billboard charts anytime soon.

Hillary Clinton: That vote to declare the Iranian Revolutionary Guard a terrorist group isn't looking too good anymore. Having a nuclear bomb has little to do with whether they're terrorists (Iran's assistance to anti-American forces in Iraq is the United States' main grievance), but now Clinton's opponents can say that she was being overly hawkish on Iran despite a lack of evidence. (Cough—Iraq authorization vote—cough.)

Doomsday paranoiacs: Are we still on the precipice of World War III? Not so much.

WINNERS
CNN: Suddenly, the network doesn't look so bad for not taking a single question on Iran in the CNN/YouTube debate last week. Oh, right, they didn't take any questions on global warming, health care, or Iraq, either.

Joe Biden: Before the NIE came out, he had been calling for Bush's impeachment if America bombed Iran. Now that stance seems even sounder.                 

All of us: Let's take a moment to realize that Iran doesn't have any nuclear weapons. This means we can all sleep a little easier at night, breathe a little more freely during the day, and only freak out about the half-dozen other states that have a nuclear bomb.

CNN's 'hit job'

The lead story (as of 4:30 p.m.) on CNNPolitics.com has a headline that seems like a veiled insult at Politico.com, its web-journalism competitor. Referring to Politico's agenda-setting story on Giuliani's questionable expense allocations after trips to the Hamptons, the story's headline reads, "Giuliani: Web site report a 'hit job'"

Guys, that's pretty Web 0.0 of you. Sure the story originally appeared on a web site, but if Congress wasn't out of town, it would have been published in Politico's print edition, as well. (Politico suspends its hard-copy daily when Congress is in recess.) To refer to it as a "web site report" rather than something like the  "questionable expense report" or the "Hampton flap" only makes the story sound illegitimate. I understand it was probably unintentional, but it's an interesting glimpse into CNN's psyche, nonetheless.

Political Swipes Getting Way Too Subtle

Both Rudy Giuliani and Mitt Romney are out with new ads today, following up on yesterday’s debate in which the two candidates tussled like hyperactive siblings.

Rudy’s, titled “Promise,” is pretty straightforward, pitching his experience in New York lowering taxes, shrinking government, and otherwise saving the city from its liberal self. Romney’s, called “Historic Choice,” pulls back to look at the broader challenges of security, the economy, and family values. It hits all our favorite imagery: the barbed wire, the Chinese assembly line, plus Romney's trademark sleeve roll. The narration culminates with the line, “Ordinary isn’t good enough,” at which point we see a shot of … the Statue of Liberty.

The viewer's first thought: That can't possibly be a swipe at Giuliani. His second thought: How can it possibly not be? Just when political attacks were starting to get explicit—i.e., fun—Romney goes back to the coy subtlety thing. Instead of referring to his wife as "sweetheart" 80 times per speech, why doesn't he just come out and say he thinks Giuliani is a family-wrecking sleaze? Instead of slyly talking about "triangulation," why doesn't he just call Hillary a conniving you-know-what? All this euphemism is exhausting.

Debate By Numbers

Using transcripts from CNN and the New York Times debate analyzer, I crunched some stats from last night's GOP debate.

• 3: Number of times Hillary Clinton was mentioned
• 4: Number of times Bill Clinton was mentioned
• 2: Number of times Mitt Romney mentioned health care
• 0: Number of times any other candidate mentioned health care
• 5: Number of times Rudy Giuliani said "Islamic"
• 3: Number of times any other candidate said "Islamic," "Islam," or "Muslim"
  
• 4: Number of times Duncan Hunter addressed Anderson Cooper as "Cooper." No other candidate followed suit.
• 2: Number of times the candidates mentioned President Bush
• 26: Number of times, according to CNN's transcript, the audience laughed
• 5: Number of times the audience laughed after watching a question from a YouTube user
  
• 7: Number of times the audience laughed after a Fred Thompson joke
• 4: Number of times the audience laughed after a Mike Huckabee joke
• 0: Number of times the audience laughed after Ron Paul or Duncan Hunter said something

Also, a breakdown of which candidates speak the fastest. Mitt Romney's mouth was a-flappin', while Fred Thompson, unsurprisingly, was the slowest talker.

If you'd like, feel free to compare the words-per-second statistics to the Democrats'.

Romney's Willie Horton Moment

What is it with Massachusetts governors and convicted killers?

Back in 1988, a hapless Michael Dukakis buckled after George H.W. Bush managed to turn a murder committed Willie Horton, a convict released under a Massachusetts furlough program, into a major campaign issue. (See Bush's famous political ad here.) Now Mitt Romney is trying to beat a similar rap.

Romney’s opponents pounced last week after Daniel Tavares, a murderer released from prison in Massachusetts after serving 16 years for killing his mother with a carving knife, was arrested again for killing a couple in Washington. Now why, you may ask, is this Romney’s fault? It turns out that Kathe Tuttman, the superior court judge who approved Tavares’ release, was appointed by Gov. Romney in 2006.

Romney quickly called for Tuttman’s resignation, but not so quickly that Rudy Giuliani couldn’t beat him over the head with it. On Saturday, Giuliani said that “it's not an isolated situation” and that “the reality is, he did not have a record of reducing violent crime" as governor. Romney’s camp fired back: “[T]he fact is under Governor Romney violent crime in Massachusetts decreased and he had a strong record of appointing law and order judges.”

Tavares isn’t likely to cripple Romney the way Horton did Dukakis. For starters, Dukakis continued to defend the furlough program under which Horton had been released. Romney, in contrast, came right out and denounced the judge’s decision. Also, the Horton flap drew attention to the death penalty, a major campaign issue that hurt Dukakis even more when he gave a seemingly emotionless response to a question about what he would do if his wife were raped and murdered. This latest tiff may well carry over into Wednesday’s debate, but I don’t see it dogging Romney into January.

For Giuliani, of course, this stuff is catnip. In one clean motion, he gets to attack Romney’s judgment, remind conservative voters that Romney was governor of Massachusetts, and bring up his own crime-fighting record for the 742,118^th time. He's on fire!

Pleading the Fifth

Rudy Giuliani got the memo about the importance of early primary states. He's just choosing to ignore it. 

While Iowa and New Hampshire are crucial states for most Republican candidates, Rudy Giuliani thinks of them more as a nuisance. Giuliani's campaign told reporters today that they think Giuliani can lose the first three contests in the cycle and still win the nomination. They essentially conceded defeat in Iowa and New Hampshire to Mitt Romney, who has double-digit leads in the polls and has poured millions into radio and television advertising.

Instead of the traditional strategy, Giuliani is hoping that Feb. 5 is a second Christmas, one where he'll be given hundreds of delegates wrapped inside a Romney concession speech. According to his campaign manager and strategy director, Giuliani can come away with delegates from January primaries in Florida and Michigan, where he leads in polls. Then on Feb. 5, the campaign figures, Giuliani's popularity in the New York region will guarantee him at least the 200 delegates from Connecticut, Delaware, New Jersey, and New York, plus many from the other 16 states that hold contests on "Tsunami Tuesday." 

This strategy borders on hubris, but it also wisely lowers the bar. If the press starts railing on Giuliani for poor showings in the first two contests he can just say, "I told you so." But can a national front-runner really set expectations that low and expect to stay out front? If Giuliani finishes fourth in Iowa to Mitt Romney, Mike Huckabee, and maybe even Ron Paul (gasp!), could his candidacy still be taken seriously? What if Romney, Paul, and McCain trump him again in New Hampshire? As a Connecticut native, I can tell you Giuliani isn't in for a soft landing on the icy streets of the Nutmeg State (where he called his lead "momentum-proof"). 

For Giuliani, his strategy is necessitated by disappointing polls in Iowa and New Hampshire. And to be fair, Giuliani has a real shot at winning South Carolina, where he's locked in a race for first with Fred Thompson and a surging Romney. But his explicit focus beyond Iowa and New Hampshire won't help his supporters in those states court new converts. Proof that Giuliani is thinking long term: He spends this week in Missouri, Florida, the Dakotas, and Washington, D.C. Iowa and New Hampshire aren't even on the schedule.

Security Blanket

For the past few months, Rudy Giuliani has been repeating the same refrain. Some variation of "I'm not a perfect candidate" has become the Giuliani motto. He uses it as a blanket mea culpa to convince conservative voters worried about his social positions that he's the best they've got. It seems to be an effective hedge—Pat Robertson's recent endorsement is just the latest sign that religious leaders are willing to place Rudy's terrorism toughness ahead of his conservative drawbacks.  

The refrain appeared again this week after Rudy's former driver, police chief, and business partner, Bernard Kerik, was indicted on conspiracy charges. Giuliani had lobbied for Kerik to become the next secretary of Homeland Security in 2004, a bid that ended in Kerik's disgraceful withdrawal. Today's New York Times story ends with Rudy's trotting out of the old standby: "I am not running as the perfect candidate."

Prior to this week, Giuliani has used the phrase to imply that he's imperfect in his personal life but that he is strong where it really matters: in the fight against terrorism. But this time, the imperfection is security-related. If Giuliani once trusted Kerik enough to put him in charge of the entire country's security, then whom else will he mistakenly trust if he's president? The ghosts of Michael Brown and Donald Rumsfeld loom large. 

Two of Giuliani's rivals were quick to attack. John McCain said Giuliani shouldn't have trusted Kerik after his disappointing stint training Iraqi police forces in Baghdad. Mitt Romney's campaign sent a memo to reporters trumpeting Romney's commitment to a clean government.

But Kerik's indictment could actually hurt Giuliani most if he ends up as the nominee. The corruption trial may take place during the heart of the general election's campaign season. There's even an outside chance that Giuliani may have to testify. For Giuliani, that's an imperfect scenario.

Health Care Totally Beats Security: Poll

Hillary Clinton’s camp is positively afloat over the new NBC News/WSJ poll. Bush’s ratings remain in the dumps, half of Americans want a Democratic president (as opposed to 35 percent who want a Republican commander-in-chief), and it looks like Clinton’s post-debate lead over her closest Democratic opponent is about as wide as her pre-debate lead.

But one of the most interesting findings—and one that certainly benefits Hillary—is this one.

Americans by 52% to 34% call the economy and health care, issues that favor Democrats, more important to their vote than the Republicans' relative strong suits of terrorism and values. That's a reversal from the Journal-NBC poll finding just before the 2004 vote that re-elected Mr. Bush and Republican congressional majorities, when voters rated terrorism and values more important, by a 49%-to-39% margin.

The implications for a candidacy like Rudy Giuliani’s couldn’t be more stark. Just yesterday, when announcing his endorsement for the former mayor, Pat Robertson ranked terrorism at the top of America’s priorities. But if this poll is correct—and its impressive 1,500-person sample size gives it extra heft—Rudy’s whole security uber alles approach might be more out of touch with mainstream Americans than he thought. That said, if he really is out of sync, it doesn’t seem to be hurting him so far: The poll shows him and Hillary competing neck and neck, with 46 percent of Americans saying they’d back Hillary to Giuliani’s 45 percent.