Does it really make any difference that erstwhile Republican U.S. Senate candidate Jack Ryan allegedly took his celebrity wife to "sex clubs" in New York City, New Orleans and Paris?  His former wife, in her divorce pleadings, stated that she refused to stay and participate. Ryan denied that it ever happened.

Let's put this in perspective: On a scale of 1 to 10, this so-called "sex scandal" ranks at about 1.5. It's not adultery. It's not child abuse or neglect. It's not spousal abuse. It's not alcoholism or drug use. It's not avoidance of military service on some flimsy pretext. It's not a crime of moral turpitude, such as embezzlement, fraud or tax evasion. It does, however, rank above getting a DUI or being photographed leaving a strip club.

But Ryan, after spending $4.9 million -- of which $3.5 million came from his own pocket -- to win the Republican nomination, quit the contest after a judge unsealed his divorce records after the Chicago Tribune filed a lawsuit. Ryan resigned the nomination, after concluding the following:

First, that he'd have to spend about $10 million to win in November, and virtually all of that would come from his resources. His fund raising would collapse.

Second, that he'd have to go with a huge media buy which proclaimed that he "did not go to any sex clubs" and which impugned the veracity of his former wife, actress Jeri Ryan. That means that anybody who wasn't aware of the allegations would now be, and would ask themselves "Why is Jack Ryan telling us he didn't go to a sex club?"

And third, Ryan was losing the race against Democrat Barack Obama anyway. His campaign had failed to use the critical post-primary months of May and June to define Obama in a negative light. And now that Ryan is bathed in a negative light, he'd have to spend the rest of the campaign either rehabilitating his image or tearing down Obama's in a nasty, negative campaign.

So, much like then-New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani in 2000 used his diagnosis of prostate cancer to opt out of the New York Senate race against Hillary Rodham Clinton -- a race he was likely to lose -- Ryan is cutting his proverbial losses. His political career is over, but he will avoid getting himself pulverized in November. He won't have to dip into his fortune, and, a year from now, the "sex club" allegations will have been long forgotten.

Ironically, Ryan's departure could create an opening for another Republican to enter the race and, perhaps, defeat Obama, but it all depends on whether the state party can find someone of stature and credibility. To assess the Republicans' chances, it is illustrative to look at four similar situations: New Jersey's and Minnesota's 2002 U.S. Senate races, and Illinois' 1952 and 1956 contests for governor.

In New Jersey, first-term Democrat Bob Torricelli had been dogged by allegations that he accepted gifts from a Korean businessman who was convicted of making $53,700 in illegal contributions to Torricelli's 1996 campaign. The U.S. attorney declined to prosecute Torricelli for any infraction, but instead sent all the case information to the Senate Ethics Committee. Torricelli testified, and he was "severely admonished" by the committee. As the campaign progressed, a laundry list of the gifts surfaced, and a local newspaper filed a lawsuit to unseal the court records of Chang. One particular memorandum, prepared by the U.S. attorney, found as "credible" Chang's allegations that he gave "tens of thousands of dollars of gifts" to Torricelli.

Torricelli's standing in the polls plummeted, and his Republican foe, wealthy businessman Doug Forrester, was all over television with anti-Torricelli ads. Forrester's whole campaign centered on one premise: Vote for me, because I'm not Torricelli. The senator looked like a goner, but Washington Democrats concocted a political master stroke: In late September 2002, Torricelli resigned his nomination, and the state Democrats named Frank Lautenberg, a popular 78-year-old former senator, who had retired in 2000 after 18 years, as his replacement. The Republicans filed a lawsuit, claiming it was too late in the campaign to replace a nominee who hadn't died, but the New Jersey Supreme Court, with a Democratic majority, upheld the switch.

Forrester's campaign then collapsed, as he had established no identity other than that he wasn't Torricelli. Lautenberg won a by a solid 209,754-vote margin, getting 54 percent of the total. By the time of the election, Forrester was undeniably well known, but Lautenberg had stature, credibility and respect, and New Jersey is a Democratic state.

In Minnesota, incumbent Paul Wellstone died in a plane crash just 10 days before the election. As his replacement, Democrats picked Walter Mondale, the 74-year-old former vice president, a man of undeniable stature. But the partisan tone of Wellstone's memorial service enraged Republicans and many independents, and they came out in droves to support Norm Coleman, a very credible Republican who was the former mayor of Saint Paul. In an upset, Coleman beat Mondale by 49,451 votes (51 percent). Unlike Forrester, Coleman was a viable candidate, and he didn't wilt in the face of Mondale's stature.

In Illinois in 1956, the Republican governor, Bill Stratton, had compiled a credible record, creating a toll-road system and sponsoring the bond issues for developing University of Illinois campuses at five sites, including Chicago Circle, but the state auditor, Republican Orville Hodge, had been stealing state funds by issuing phony warrants, and the entire Republican ticket was in jeopardy. But then it was revealed that Cook County Treasurer Herbert Paschen, who was the Democratic candidate for governor, had a "flower fund" to which customers and attorneys donated -- and which ended up in his pocket. After months of media headlines, Paschen resigned his nomination in late August and was replaced by Judge Richard Austin.

Austin lacked stature, time and money. Nevertheless, the Hodge scandal took a toll, and Stratton won a second term by just 36,877 votes. Had Paschen not self-destructed, he probably would have been elected governor.

In 1952 Illinois had a popular governor, Adlai Stevenson, who was strongly favored for re-election to a second term. The Republican, Stratton, was then state treasurer, and he was not given any chance of upsetting Stevenson. But Stevenson, who had not campaigned for president, won the Democratic nomination after a deadlock, and he was barred by state law from running for both offices, so he resigned his state nomination and was replaced by Lieutenant Governor Sherwood Dixon. Both Dixon and Stratton lacked stature, but Republican Dwight Eisenhower won Illinois by 443,407 votes, and Stratton beat Dixon by 227,642 votes.

How does this relate to the 2004 contest?

First, the Republican replacement field is thin. If either Jim Thompson, age 68, or Jim Edgar, age 58, both former governors, opted to run, they would do a Lautenberg. Both have enormous stature and credibility. The race would then be between the young Obama and the experienced Republican who, like Lautenberg, has been recalled to do his duty. Edgar refused to run for the Senate this year, primarily because he would have had his life probed mercilessly by the media -- like Jack Ryan's was. But if he or Thompson were handed the nomination on a platter, late in the campaign, and if either were convinced that Obama would not go negative, then the temptation could be irresistible. Like Lautenberg, Edgar or Thompson could run on his resume and tap a reservoir of goodwill; they would not have to run against Obama.

Second, there are a bunch of Sherwood Dixons in the Republican field, including three 2004 primary losers: Steve Rauschenberger, a state senator, Jim Oberweis, of dairy fame, and Andy McKenna, a Morton Grove businessman. Also mentioned are Jim Durkin, who lost the 2002 Senate race to Democrat Dick Durbin, Thompson's wife, Jayne, and wealthy businessman Ron Gidwitz.

None of these contenders would have a chance against Obama. All, except  Jayne Thompson, would start as relative unknowns, and each would have to spend lavishly to increase his or her name identification and to attack Obama.

Absent from the list of replacements is retiring Republican U.S. Senator Peter Fitzgerald. That's because Fitzgerald is so reviled by the party establishment, which must choose a new nominee, that he is not even considered. Besides, Fitzgerald has already bought a $5 million post-retirement home in Virginia, and he probably has lined up a lobbying or consulting job.

And third, Obama is a celebrity/novelty. His black father is from Kenya, and his white mother is from Kansas, but Obama clearly benefits from being an African-American candidate. He has impeccable educational credentials, a photogenic family and 8 years in the Illinois Senate. In the primary, Obama was the clearly identified liberal candidate, and he got near-unanimous black support and won a seven-candidate race with 53 percent of the vote.

Since the primary, Ryan's researchers plumbed Obama's background but found nothing damaging. He's not ethically challenged, and there are no personal scandals. To be sure, Obama can be attacked as a liberal, but blasting him for supporting gun control, abortion rights and gay rights and for opposing the Iraq war would be counterproductive, only serving to solidify his base.

The only way to beat Obama is to have a candidate of enormous stature.

The bottom line: Baseball legend and legendary language mangler Yogi Berra once opined that "It ain't over until it's over." If Ryan's replacement isn't Big Jim or Jim the Second, then the 2004 Senate race is over, and Obama can start packing for Washington.