I don't think so. He is vulnerable, but so is Romney (flip flopping), McCain (hated by the base), Hillary (demeanor), and virtually everyone else (unknown). He does have a much greater image than all the others. We'll see if it wears off or not.

He's more vulnerable than most of the other contenders, but he also has more assets (national stature, accustomed to rough politics, familiar with handling media, etc) than the other contenders.

It's far to early to predict how far he'll go, but it will be interesting.

I write as an ex New Yorker with lots of family still living in the city.

Rudolph Giuliani, was looking pretty down and out at the end of his tenure until his 5-Star performance after 9/11 raised his profile.

RG did have noteworthy achievements but in my eyes he has some major flaws as a manager. Here are 3:

RG hired, admired and partnered with Bernard Kerik. Then promoted him to Bush as a candidate for head of Homeland Security. - Do we need more folks of the caliber of Harriet Meiers? I hope never to hear our president say anything like "Heck of a job, Brownie."

RG botched the divorce from his 2nd wife. It was a very public mess.

RG located New York's emergency command and control center in the World Trade Center rather than a concrete bunker in an outlying region.

I would rather have Bloomberg as our next President

I'll add one other major Rudy weakness: wanting to extend his term of office after 9/11. It was so vainglorious. I think the charge that he truly does think of himself as the irreplaceable man will not carry well. Combined with his sometimes rapid law n'order tendencies, he can be parodied as a budding caudillo who puts himself above the law.

And the irony is both Clinton and Giulani are leading in the (admittedly extremely early) polls in their respective races.

what does it matter? according to Goldberg in LATimes the growing mantra among conservatives is that it will be 'best' for the country that a Democrat win the White House - a rationalization so strained by its delusions that it spills into psychosis. For people who pride themselves on being 'realists' Republicans sure do seem to be leaning a lot on outright fantasy these days.

Proven leadership and sucess is hard to find. If he wins the nomination he is center enough to win the general election. The primaries are going to depend on how many people like me are going to register Republican just to vote for him.

Since Jesus and Reagan are both unavailable, Rudy seems a pretty good alternative to Hillary.

Yes, he is vulnerable. His strong point is 9/11 but as long as there are not more attacks on the homeland between now and the election that is unlikely to be enough to trump the negatives highlighted here. Can you imagaine a race between Rudy the divider and Obama the uniter?

He also coddles dictators.

It's easy to find any candidate to be horribly flawed when you aren't comparing them to anyone else.

Giuliani's shortcomings aren't well known, but like his vaunted social liberalism that's supposed to kill his candidacy, it's not going to matter a whole lot.

Democrats are trying to tear him down becuase they fear him. Simple as that.

Democrats are trying to tear him down becuase they fear him. Simple as that.

Oh please. Rudy has a habit of self-immolation. He'll tear himself down. BTW, Hillary still polls ahead of him in New York

There are good reasons why big-city mayors haven't gotten elected President in the past. They still apply.

Most major media and a surprising percentage of all bloggers are based in or near big cities, which makes this less well understood than it will become, but big cities tend to be pretty parochial places. Their residents are apt to pride themselves on their distinctiveness and on the ways the places they live are different from the rest of the country. This is not an asset in national campaigns.

Giuliani has specific weaknesses as a Presidential candidate, of which the largest may be his strong feeling of personal entitlement. I don't see him as a candidate for the long haul.

Newt Gingrich: faster, please.

I don't see Guiliani's problems as a candidate as worse than any of the others in the field. None of the Republican candidates seems to be the "official" party choice, the way that both Bushes and Dole were. They all have their negatives which might destroy their chances if there were an "official" candidate. But there isn't, and someone has to win. Right now, it could be Guiliani.

Obviously the field will shake out as time passes. Perhaps a candidate will emerge as the establishment choice, and another as the insurgent opposition, and all the rest will fall away into irrelevance. But at this point, I'd give Guiliani no worse odds of winning the nomination as any other candidate currently considered to be in the race. I think this makes the race rather interesting (but one wonders how long this interest can be sustained, so far in advance of the actual primaries).

I'm not sure that the fact that Rudy supposedly is personally a jerk will have much relevance to the campaign, because the voter never sees the private personality. Remember how we always hear that Al Gore (or Hillary Clinton) is quite loose and funny in person?

Rudy does reveal his private jerk side. Look at the way he announced his divorce from Donna Hanover.

Rudy does reveal his private jerk side. Look at the way he announced his divorce from Donna Hanover.

At the same time, I don't necessarily think that being a total jerk necessarily makes a bad executive. Clinton was a jerk; so was Nixon. Both were however, I feel, great Presidents.

As someone who grew up right outside New York City and currently lives in Manhattan, I have Rudy to thank for making a previously "ungovernable city" a pretty safe place to live.

Before he took over, most people in the suburbs came into Manhattan for one thing: to work. 42nd street, which is now extremely clean and family friendly was exceedingly seedy.

Don't believe me, just watch any move from the 1980's. "Coming to America" (btw a great movie if you have never seen it) was on the other day, and the dirtiness of the city was especially evident in the scenes showing the subway cars.

This notion that Rudy Giuliani was a failure prior to 9/11 borders on the absurd. He was overwhelmingly re-elected as a real Republican in one of the most overwhelmingly Democratic cities in the country.

Prior to bowing out of the Senate race with Hillary Clinton, he was actually running neck-to-neck with her and many people believe he would have won.

Notwithstanding his personal issues, he was a great mayor both prior and after 9/11. No amount of revisionist history can change that.

http://holdthesenate.blogspot.com

I guess it depends on which side you are on. No amount of revisionist history will take away his coddling of Baby Doc Duvalier, his piss-poor judgment in enabling the career of Bernard Kerik, his inability to share credit (see Bill Bratton), his notoriously thin skin (re: the bus advertisements), his appointment of Russell Harding as Executive Director of the NYC Housing Development Corporation, whose sole qualification was being the progeny of a political crony (Harding is now doing time for embezzling more than $400K from NYCHDC) and his horrendous personal life. I lived in Manhattan and Queens during Giuliani's terms, btw.

The idea that this man should then be given the reins of our nation is mind-boggling.

Mayor Daley has been excellent in Chicago too. I wouldn't vote for him as President either. What works for a city, doesn't work for the world.

Rudy is empty, vain and empty. He's off putting. We need a break from President Bush, not a rerun.

Mayor Daley has been excellent in Chicago too. I wouldn't vote for him as President either. What works for a city, doesn't work for the world.

Rudy is empty, vain and empty. He's off putting. We need a break from President Bush, not a rerun.