What does it really matter what city it was? Like I care, or anyone else for that matter, any more or less, or his experience is any better, than it's already-dismal state, because he ran New York City!
Probably one of the few cities that would have elected this clown pre-9/11. Gay-loving, anti-second amendment, pro-illegal alien, pro-abortion crossdressers wouldn't play to well in the south or midwest.
So, then, what are we supposed to do if it is Rudy vs Hillary or Obama? To stay home is a default vote for the Democrats. Voting Libertarian is the same thing. We never learn, like the Dems, to vote for the party not the man and try to work around an unsatisfactory President. I CANNOT allow myself to contribute to a Democrat victory. If that means voting for Rudy, I will.
Well, for starters, New York City has a population of 8 million people. That compares pretty well next to some recent governors who've reached for the White House.
Howard Dean - Vermont - 600k
Bill Richardson - New Mexico - 2 million
Mitt Romney - Massachusates - 6.4 million
George Bush - Texas - 20.8
Ronald Reagan - California - 19 million (late sixties)
Jimmy Carter - Georgia - 4.5 (early seventies)
So, running New York City is easily comperable to being a governor. Argueably, it's much harder, since the problems of a city that size are a lot more complex than those of a rural state, and the Democratic establishment is more entrenched. The fact that he did so well in turning the city around (as any New Yorker will tell you, even the ones that hate him) speaks volumes to his abilities as an executive. His socially liberal views notwithstanding, he's got real leadership experience and successes. Fred Thompson doesn't.