I think Frank Rich is slipping:

... Mr. Giuliani ... wasn't a cheerleader for the subsequent detour into Iraq, wasn't in office once the war started, and actively avoids speaking about it in any detail.'

(Emphasis added.)

Hunh? Rudy co-wrote a Wall Street Journal op-ed about Iraq. He did an entire segment about Iraq on Hannity & Colmes in early January. Local news station NY1 says that in his CPAC speech "The former mayor focused on security and the war in Iraq." Yeah, he's delivered Iraq-free speeches, and he's expressed some doubt about whether the surge will work. But he is talking about Iraq.

( UPDATE: Media Matters has much more on Giuliani's Iraq war cheerleading.)

In the same column, Rich suggests that John McCain's poll numbers are slumping because he didn't challenge the war:

The long-running Iraq catastrophe is now poised to mow down a second generation of political prey: presidential hopefuls who might have strongly challenged Bush war policy when it counted and didn't. That list starts with the candidates long regarded as their parties' 2008 favorites, John McCain and Hillary Clinton.

Hillary, maybe, but McCain? Why the hell would he be slipping in polls of Republicans because of his support for the war?

And to make it a trifecta, Rich says,

Anti-Clinton rage has cooled, and the Clinton hating industry ain't what it used to be.

You're dreaming, Frank. If Hillary gets the nomination, it's going to come from all the usual suspects any minute now -- maybe with the exception of Scaife (you quote his denial that he'll go after her this time, but why should believe that?).