The Story of Wife No. 3

By Howard Kurtz
Washington Post Staff Writer
Thursday, August 2, 2007 7:36 AM

Let's see: We the media have done Jeri the trophy wife. Elizabeth the cancer-stricken, Coulter-challenging strategist. Bill the questionable, once-philandering spouse. Andrew the disaffected son. Chelsea the once-and-possibly-future First Daughter.

And now it's Judith Giuliani's turn.

Rudy's former mistress already had a big rollout in the media when the couple sat down with Barbara Walters and the former mayor said she could sit in on Cabinet meetings. Then there was the revelation about the second ex-husband who she had somehow failed to mention. Judith disappeared for awhile.

The problem for her is that she can't freely talk about how they met (in a Manhattan cigar bar, it turns out) and courted because she was, at the time, the Other Woman in one of the ugliest public divorces in modern history. Even by New York tabloid standards, the accusations that were hurled between Hizzoner's camp and Donna Hanover's side were extraordinarily personal.

How interested should we be in Rudy's third wife? After all, Giuliani isn't one of these David Vitter Republicans who preached about family values. So he's had a messy love life -- so what?

That might be fine in a gubernatorial race. But if he wins, the former Judith Nathan would be first lady of the United States. She would automatically become one of the most high-profile women in the world. There is, quite simply, no way to wall her off from the media coverage.

Now comes Vanity Fair, with a Judy Bachrach profile of Mrs. G that is, shall we say, less than flattering. Some highlights:

"Within Giuliani's camp the picture of who Judith is is not much clearer. 'When I see her, she's only interested in my jewelry, where I buy my dresses,' says a friend of the former mayor's. 'Does anyone really know Judith Giuliani? Let's be honest: no one does.' "

Ex-husband Bruce: " 'My wife drinks often,' Bruce had maintained for years. 'She is a manipulator and a pathological liar and exaggerator.' It was all fuel for the tabloids. Everything in Judi's life was.' . . .

"According to a number of Giuliani's good friends, the former mayor insists on Judith's presence at events for his offspring -- and when this demand is thwarted, he doesn't attend. He was not present, they say, at Andrew's graduation from St. Joseph Regional High School in New Jersey. Now 21 and a Duke University junior, the son tells friends he doesn't speak to Rudy, according to one of his classmates -- this at a time when his father is desperate to attract conservative, family-values backing . . .

"She has become used to getting her way. An organizer of a recent fashion shoot received a call from one of Rudy's business associates warning her to address his wife as Judith. According to this source, Judith became so smitten with the dress she was modeling 'that she simply didn't want to take it off. She didn't offer to pay. She made it very clear she wanted it for free. You know how it is when someone stalls.' . . .

"If Giuliani's third wife became less popular as time went on, it was in part due to the feeling that she had a private list of Rudy loyalists she wanted fired . . .

"And her ire is apparently not confined to staff. 'Listen. She can be very, very abrasive. At him!' says a close friend. There have been blowups, say those who have witnessed them, and obtuse demands. Some years ago on a plane to Japan, Judith became so angry at her husband, says a close Giuliani friend, that Rudy, who 'couldn't take it anymore,' moved to the back of the aircraft, switching places with an advance man."

Well, that would sure keep the media entertained for four years.

National Review's Myrna Blyth questions the CW that candidates' wives won't affect the voting:

"Can that really be true in campaign 2008 when one of the spouses is the ex-president? Surely there will be a time when someone will be looking at what Bill Clinton has been doing lately and will slash away in a manner not dissimilar to Judy Bachrach's take on Mrs. Giuliani . . .

"Even though the piece about Judith Giuliani is sprinkled with a few positives -- she's concerned about his relationship with his kids, she was helpful to the relatives of 9/11 victims -- its overwhelming impression is a mean-spirited caricature. But it not so different than dozens of pieces we've read in the past (and snickered about) and will continue to read during this campaign. Everyone bewails the politics of personal destruction and wants that to change, but can that happen if the journalism of personal destruction is really setting the agenda?"

Salon Editor Joan Walsh sees major damage:

"I've long believed that Rudy Giuliani's personal life will doom his presidential bid. I'm not saying it should: Some of the things that will likely give him problems with Republican primary voters are among the only things I like about him: He's not afraid to dress in drag, and he shared an apartment with a gay couple in between his last two marriages, an openness reflected politically in his comparatively tolerant approach on social issues (by contrast with the rest of the GOP field, anyway).

"Then there are his three marriages. Personally, I don't think failing at marriage should disqualify someone for the presidency, not even failing twice. But there have long been whispers that Giuliani's third marriage, not his two divorces, could be his biggest personal problem . . .

"Judy Bachrach has written a devastating portrait of a striving, semi-self-made woman from small-town Pennsylvania who climbed up by her bootstraps (and those of her three husbands) to travel by Gulfstream, wear Dolce & Gabbana, and use her entourage to shove Hillary Clinton aside at the first 9/11 anniversary ceremony . . .

"Of course, there's no proof his marriage is in mortal trouble, although the willingness of current friends and staffers to trash her to Bachrach was remarkable, and might mean they smell blood."

Most people may have forgotten that Roger Ailes was Giuliani's media adviser in his first run for mayor in 1989; I have not, because I covered that race. The New York Times is raising questions about the relationship:

"Mr. Giuliani, as mayor, officiated at Mr. Ailes's wedding and intervened on his behalf when Mr. Ailes's company, Fox News Channel, was blocked from securing a cable station in the city.

"This year, they were tablemates at the White House correspondents dinner, which Mr. Giuliani attended as a guest of Fox's parent company, News Corporation.

"Now these allies and friends find themselves on largely uncharted political turf. Mr. Giuliani, 63, is a leading Republican candidate for president. Mr. Ailes, 67, as head of Fox News, runs the pre-eminent media outlet for likely voters in a Republican primary.

"Whether their friendship would ever affect coverage -- Fox insists it has not and will not -- it is nonetheless the sort of relationship that other campaigns have noted and are watching, though none wanted to speak publicly for fear of offending Fox News.

"So far this year, one political journal found, Mr. Giuliani has logged more time on Fox interview programs than any other candidate. Most of the time has been spent in interviews with Sean Hannity, an acknowledged admirer of the former mayor, according to the data compiled by the journal, known as The Hotline."

You know who else has favored Hannity with his rare interviews? Fred Thompson.

The focus on Rudy makes sense if a new NBC/WSJ poll is any indication. Giuliani leads Thompson 33 to 20, with McCain at 17 and Romney at 8. (So why does the press describe McCain as toast and Romney as strong again?) Hillary nearly doubles Obama's support, 43 to 22, with Edwards at 13.

All right, time for a little substance. Obama is making waves with a foreign-policy speech, with dramatically different reactions on the left and right.

"The United States must add at least 7,000 troops in Afghanistan, double foreign aid spending to $50 billion, and be prepared to strike unilaterally against terrorist sanctuaries in Pakistan, Senator Barack Obama of Illinois said yesterday in a major speech laying out his counterterrorism plan . . .

"Political analysts interpreted Obama's speech as a pointed message to his presidential competitors: that he will not accept being portrayed as weak or inexperienced on terrorism and world affairs," says the Boston Globe.

Captain Ed has lost all confidence in Obama, if he ever had any:

"Democrats have been demanding a withdrawal from Iraq for the past two years, and Barack Obama knows exactly what he'll do with the troops once they withdraw. He'll send them on an invasion of Pakistan:

"In a strikingly bold speech about terrorism scheduled for this morning, Democratic presidential candidate Illinois Sen. Barack Obama will call not only for a withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq, but a redeployment of troops into Afghanistan and even Pakistan -- with or without the permission of Pakistan President Pervez Musharraf.

" 'I understand that President Musharraf has his own challenges,' Obama will say, according to speech excerpts provided to ABC News by his campaign, 'but let me make this clear. There are terrorists holed up in those mountains who murdered 3,000 Americans. They are plotting to strike again. It was a terrible mistake to fail to act when we had a chance to take out an al Qaeda leadership meeting in 2005. If we have actionable intelligence about high-value terrorist targets and President Musharraf won't act, we will.' . . . .

"In many ways, the speech is counterintuitive; Obama, one of the more liberal candidates in the race, is proposing a geopolitical posture that is more aggressive than that of President Bush. It comes at a time in Obama's campaign when the freshman senator is drawing more financial support from more voters than any other candidate, though he has yet to vault from his second-place position in the polls. One of the reasons for that is that the Democratic front-runner, New York Sen. Hillary Clinton, is seen as more experienced and in some ways stronger, a perspective Obama wishes to change.

"One would hope that this would mark the end of Barack Obama's credibility as a presidential candidate. Given the other options available in the campaign, it probably won't. Too bad -- because of all the war plans floated by the Democrats in this primary campaign, this is easily the stupidest of all."

At Right Wing Nuthouse, Rick Moran is equally critical:

"What do you believe would happen if American forces invaded Pakistan to go after the Taliban without the permission of the Musharraf government?

"Most analysts expect the Pakistani people would pour into the streets in protest, destablizing that already fragile country to the point that it would be possible for a much more conservative, Taliban friendly government to emerge from the chaos. Pakistan is already the most anti-American country in the world following our invasion of Afghanistan. It would be stupid to invade and threaten Musharraf's hold on power."

But the view is quite different at American Prospect, where Sam Boyd gives a thumbs-up:

"BARACK OBAMA WILL PERSONALLY TRACK DOWN OSAMA BIN LADEN AND KILL HIM WITH HIS BARE HANDS. Not really, but that's the impression you get from the glowing coverage of Obama's speech. It was, indeed, very good and there's a good chance it will be remembered as the moment he finally dispelled worries about his foreign policy experience. Substantively, it contains pretty much everything you could ask for -- withdrawal from Iraq, non-proliferation, greater involvement in Afghanistan and so on.

"The most ballyhooed part is the suggestion that Obama might invade tribal areas just across the border from Afghanistan in Pakistan to root out Al Qaeda and even use US troops. Is this a good idea? I don't know, but the most likely criticism--that it would destabilize Musharraf--is likely not helpful because, the way things are going in Pakistan, we have no idea what the balance of power will be in 2009 or even who will be running the country. Ezra wonders whether we'd be able to convince Musharraf to cooperate, but the speech includes this line: 'If we have actionable intelligence about high-value terrorist targets and President Musharraf won't act, we will,' indicating that Obama wouldn't be relying on Pakistani help.

"Politically, this is quite a coup. ABC called it 'bold,' the AP headlined its coverage 'Obama Vows to Hunt Down Terrorists' and Reuters went with 'Obama talks tough.' The speech shows that Obama is capable of telling a powerful and all-encompassing story about his vision of foreign policy--something few other candidates can say. It's also a giant 'who you calling naive?' aimed at the Clinton campaign."

Beyond foreign policy, Andrew Sullivan detects a difference between the two front-runners that is hard to deny:

"They are of different Democratic generations. Clinton is from the traumatized generation; Obama isn't. Clinton has internalized to her bones the 1990s sense that conservatism is ascendant, that what she really believes is unpopular, that the Republicans have structural, latent power of having a majority of Americans on their side. Hence the fact that she reeks of fear, of calculation, of focus groups, of triangulation. She might once have had ideals keenly felt; she might once have actually relished fighting for them and arguing in their defense. But she has not been like that for a very long time. She has political post-traumatic stress disorder. She saw her view of feminism gutted in the 1992 campaign; she saw her healthcare plan destroyed by what she saw as a VRWC; she remains among the most risk-averse of Democrats on foreign policy and in the culture wars . . .

"Obama is different. He wasn't mugged by the 1980s and 1990s as Clinton was. He doesn't carry within him the liberal self-hatred and self-doubt that Clinton does. The traumatized Democrats fear the majority of Americans are bigoted, know-nothing, racist rubes from whom they need to conceal their true feelings and views. The non-traumatized Democrats are able to say what they think, make their case to potential supporters and act, well, like Republicans acted in the 1980s and 1990s. The choice between Clinton and Obama is the choice between a defensive crouch and a confident engagement."

As the world gets used to the idea of a Rupe Street Journal, Slate's Jack Shafer-- one of Murdoch's biggest critics--takes the bold step of predicting that the mogul will eventually dump his $5-billion prize:

"The last time Murdoch made a controversial purchase of a family-controlled operation was when he picked up the Los Angeles Dodgers in the late 1990s from the O'Malleys for $350 million. The team was supposed to be the basis of his big sports media thrust, but after a couple of years he dumped the team. At one point he was assembling a tabloid newspaper empire in the United States, with titles in San Antonio, Chicago, Boston, and New York. Switching gears, he dumped them all before returning to buy the oddly influential New York Post. He battled his way into satellite broadcasting, making a run on a couple of operations before acquiring a controlling interest in DirecTV. Now he's bailing out of it. He entered the American magazine market in a big way (Automobile, Mirabella, New York, Seventeen, et al.) and is now almost completely out . . .

"I've predicted that Murdoch will be a bad Wall Street Journal owner because of his instinct to foul every journalism nest in which he roosts. I need to reiterate my view that Murdoch fouls his nests not because he's a bad news man but because he's no sort of a news man. He's an impresario, a politician, and empire builder who pushes the truth only when it serves his business interests . . .

"The day will come that Murdoch decides that the newspaper and its parent company no longer fit in the colossus' ever-shifting plan to straddle all the world's media. After extracting a bit of the Journal's prestige value for his forthcoming cable business news channel, I predict he'll grow tired of the criticisms and sell it off."

Hmm . . . Is it against the law for Britney Spears to yell at a photographer, "I'm going to kill you!"?