The man who mistook his wife for something or other

Does it make Jeanine Pirro more or less appealing to the median New York voter that her husband is an asshole who is trying to undermine her campaign? This post will assume that a New York Post article has its facts right about Albert Pirro's actions (use bugmenot if you aren't registered for the Post). I seem to recall such an assumption proving unwise in the past, though I don't have a specific instance in mind. Also, my insight into the mind of the median voter is wholly hypothetical. That said, let's consider some possible reactions to reading that her husband has gone to top New York Republicans and asked that they suggest she drop out of the Senate race in favor of a State A.G. run.

1) Sympathy for her having to deal with such a betrayal.
2) Increased respect for her integrity, since his action lends credence to the idea that her husband's illegal actions while she was Westchester D.A. may have really been unknown to her.
3) Questioning of her judgment as to why she has continued her marriage with someone convicted of a crime and who is apparently willing to act against her politically, or, to put a slightly better light on it, doesn't respect her enough to realize that if he can't persuade her that her campaign is a mistake he shouldn't oppose her.
4) Appreciation of her devotion to her marriage for staying with it despite everything mentioned in point three.
5) Deciding not to become emotionally or intellectually invested in a campaign which many prominent members of her own party see as doomed.