Rudy Giuliani is in. Suggested campaign slogan: “He dealt with Brooklyn. He can handle Baghdad.” He’s not a sure thing; he has enough baggage to fill the cargo hold of a cruise ship. His sundry personal-life issues bother social conservatives; the gun control stance dismays the Second Amendment wing of the party; the pro-choice opinions alarm the evangelicals. That leaves about 47 Republicans, right? After all, it’s just a party of cousin-marrying yahoos who’d sooner shoot up Planned Parenthood than vote for one of those fish-on-Friday types. Right?

No. Voters are more flexible and forgiving than you might expect. And none of the objections obscures the central appeal of the Rudy candidacy: He’ll nuke ‘em if he has to. That won’t be the central theme of his campaign, of course, but it’s the unstated strength of his candidacy. He’s not a wuss. Look at the rest of the field:

Mitt Romney. He’s a heavy fave, but the M-word makes his support in the evangelical community unsure. Many will vote for him, since he’s an all-around moral guy, and no one wants a public debate over doctrinal differences. Other evangelicals regard his faith as something between David Koresh and Scientology, and would rather vote for Joe Lieberman. (Him you could convert!) Romney has an abortion flip-flop to confront, which softens his support as well. He’s a solid candidate thus far because he’s, well, solid: He appears hewn from the Presidential Quarry.

On the other hand, he could be a genial cyborg from an invading race. Wouldn’t exactly surprise anyone.

Chuck Hagel. Comes in last in most seven-man straw polls. No. 6 is usually “A ham sandwich.” The sandwich is pro-choice, too.

John McCain. Loved within the Beltway for his “maverick” ways. Unfortunately, outside the Beltway, “maverick” is defined as a tendency to stab the party in the back repeatedly, then expect everyone to pay for the blade to be resharpened. The base admires John McCain as a man; the base honors his service, both in the armed forces and the Senate. The base looks forward to his concession speech.

Newt. The right loves Newt, just as the left loves Clinton. Newt’s about six times smarter than Bill Clinton, but lacks the former president’s oleaginous charisma. Could he win? Never. And probably just as well. President Newt would respond to a terrorist attack with a brilliant plan – radical, simple, old wisdom and dazzling new thinking in a brilliant synthesis. Unfortunately, it would involve time travel or orbital space lasers.

Fred Thompson hasn’t declared, but should. He has been waging a stealth campaign simply by appearing as a guest host for Paul Harvey. He sounds like a man with his boots on the desk and a star on his chest. As a veep, he would make John Edwards look like Peter Pan. For the debate, Edwards might as well show up in green tights.

Who’s on the other side? Barack Obama, the Nat King Cool of this election cycle. Hillary the Grim, who’s promised to confiscate more private property than usual: “I want to take (Exxon’s) profits and I want to put them into a strategic energy fund that will begin to fund alternative smart energy.” Most despots have the decency to use the royal we, but perhaps that’s her common touch at work. John Edwards, who demonstrated his managerial skills by hiring as his blogmaster a writer whose ceaseless profanity makes Richard Pryor routines look like a papal encyclical, and showed his concern for “the Other America” by building a new house large enough to shelter them all. It’s all wide open, in other words.

If the Islamists are smart, they won’t pull anything between now and ‘08; an attack would surely bolster Rudy’s stock. Put him up against Clinton, and the results might be surprising. As millions of Democratic wives would tell their friends: “I don’t know how he won. My husband swore he voted for Hillary.”