Simply reading the headline and kicker for the latest Zogby poll should tell you it's a bit of a farce, pumping up Hillary when the facts don't support it. It's accurate enough, but is it "true?"
Zogby Poll: 52% Support U.S. Military Strike Against Iran
Most see Clinton as the presidential candidate best equipped to deal with Iran, followed by Giuliani and McCain—but many express uncertainty
Define most. Given that it's still primary season and the lines between Democrats and Republicans are fairly well drawn between confrontation and appeasement, if anything the 52% number above suggests an edge for Republicans across a divided and ultimately undecided electorate. Below is the key graph.
When asked which presidential candidate would be best equipped to deal with Iran – regardless of whether or not they expected the U.S. to attack Iran – 21% would most like to see New York U.S. Sen. Hillary Clinton leading the country, while 15% would prefer former New York mayor Rudy Giuliani and 14% would want Arizona U.S. Sen. John McCain in charge. Another 10% said Illinois Sen. Barack Obama would be best equipped to deal with Iran, while Republican Fred Thompson (5%), Democrat John Edwards (4%) and Republican Mitt Romney (3%) were less likely to be viewed as the best leaders to help the U.S. deal with Iran. The telephone poll of 1,028 likely voters nationwide was conducted Oct. 24-27, 2007 and carries a margin of error of +/- 3.1 percentage points.
Support for Hillary, Obama and Edwards equals 35%. Support for the Republican alternatives equals 37%. That leaves 28% undecided but the 52% Iran-related number suggests a slight lean toward confrontation, or the Republican line on Iran.
In short, post-primaries, 2008 is a horse race with a slight advantage going to the GOP. After all, 52 - 48 would be a fairly decent win in the Presidential stakes, wouldn't it? While accurate, the notion that most Americans see Hillary as the answer given where things stand right now is just a Zogby invention to give Hillary a little more buzz. And given her significant national presence over years, frankly, any broad support simply isn't there.
Zogby, IMHO, is nothing but a shilling agency for Hitlary.
And in the end, Hitlary will do what is best for Hitlary, even if that includes seizing that Assyrian/Persian bull by its horns and riding a "stay the course" platform all the way to the White House - to the consternation of the nutroots.
If that proves to be the case... it would go a LONG way toward denying claims that the majority of Americans are anti-interventionist concerning Iran and Iraq.
Alternatively, she could go back into appeasement mode at the drop of a pin. She is that kind of shape-shifting chameleon whose motto is "no pandering act done too small or too great".... a sure sign of a power-craving madwoman who will drive this nation into far greater depths of ruin that even the most BDS-afflicted democrat minion could have ever hoped to blame Bush for.
As for the GOP candidates - I'd say that Guliani is at his high-water mark or has passed it. Romney is far more polished, Huckabee has high hopes of pulling a surprisingly large rabbit out of Iowa, and Fred! still has a fighting chance, ahead of "open Borders McBane".
Posted by: seekeronos | Tuesday, October 30, 2007 at 02:05 PM
Tee, hee! YOU said "broad support"! No one supports that broad.
/Bart_simpson_mode
Posted by: Al in St. Lou | Tuesday, October 30, 2007 at 02:22 PM
My local Santeria priestess gives better predictions than Zogby. Just saying...
Posted by: Purple Avenger | Tuesday, October 30, 2007 at 02:53 PM
If you Keyboard Kommandos gave a $hit about the troops in Iraq, you would not be slobbering over bombing Iran.
But hey, it's not like you guys have anything at stake! What else is new?!? More war! More war! More war!
Translation: You got beat up by a girl in second grade.
Posted by: waka waka | Tuesday, October 30, 2007 at 07:14 PM
A'jad is the one who is casting about for a war. Of course, diplomacy, spywork, and other nifty items brought out of the twin bags of politics and clandestine trickery are more desireable than rolling out airstrikes, tanks, and maybe a couple-three dozen low yield fissile muntions tactically deployed, of course.
But if A'jad wants to keep stirring his apocalyptic visions of a new Israeli Holocaust, then I reckon we can oblige him... on our terms.
Posted by: seekeronos | Tuesday, October 30, 2007 at 08:14 PM
There's no need to attack Iran. The Israelis are not going to sit still for anyone in thier neighborhood getting "Da Bomb"
Posted by: Wahoo Willie Sez: | Tuesday, October 30, 2007 at 10:41 PM