Clinton and Giuliani Are Way Out Front in New Poll

-

hillary clinton rudy giuliani.jpg
Bloomberg and the Los Angeles Times just released a new poll showing Hillary leads Barack Obama by 31 points among likely voters — and as things stand right now has her beating all likely Republicans in the general election.
Giuliani continues to poll strongly pulling 32% of all likely Republican voters. In my book, this is good. I’d like to see Giuliani and Clinton square off because she can beat him given how narrowly he is defining his candidacy. And the fact that David Frum, Norman Podhoretz, and Daniel Pipes are advisors to Giuliani makes folks like me salivate.
Whether the Republican Party knows it or not, a Romney/Hagel ticket or Romney/Huckabee ticket would be much harder for Hillary Clinton to tackle.
— Steve Clemons

Comments

7 comments on “Clinton and Giuliani Are Way Out Front in New Poll

  1. Kathleen says:

    This may be OT, but as one of the first, if not the first, to call Darth, Darth, I get a chuckle seeing others do it too.
    Lately tho, I’m feeling like our Ship of State has turned into The Flying Dutchman, with Capt’n Ahab at the helm, detrmined to allow his paranoid projections and obssessvie search for WMD’s lead us all to our destruction.
    Madness as Method
    by Maureen Dowd
    Dick CheneyÂ’s craziness used to influence foreign policy.
    Now it is foreign policy.
    He may have lost his buddy in belligerence, Rummy. He may have tapped out the military in Iraq. He may not be able to persuade Congress so easily anymore – except for Hillary – to issue warlike resolutions. He canÂ’t cow Condi into supporting his bullying as he once did, and Bob Gates is doing his best to instill some common sense.
    Besides, Cheney is running out of time to wreak global havoc; heÂ’s working for a president who is spending his waning days on the job trying to prevent children from getting health insurance.
    But the vice president may have hit on a devious tactic used by his old boss Richard Nixon.
    President Nixon and Henry Kissinger liked to use madness as a method. In 1969, Nixon told Kissinger to caution the Soviet ambassador that Nixon was “out of control” on Indochina, and could do something drastic.
    Three months earlier, as Anthony Summers wrote in “The Arrogance of Power: The Secret World of Richard Nixon,” “Kissinger had sent that very same message by proxy when he instructed Len Garment, about to leave on a trip to Moscow, to give the Soviets ‘the impression that Nixon is somewhat “crazy” – immensely intelligent, well organized and experienced to be sure, but at moments of stress or personal challenge unpredictable and capable of the bloodiest brutality.Â’ Garment carried out the mission, telling a senior Brezhnev adviser that Nixon was ‘a dramatically disjointed personality Â… more than a little paranoid Â… when necessary, a cold-hearted butcher.Â’ ” All of which, his aides later reflected, was kind of true.
    Cheney seems to enjoy giving the impression that he is loony enough to pull off an attack on Iran before leaving office – even if he has to do it alone, like Slim Pickens riding the bomb down in “Dr. Strangelove” to the sentimental tune of “WeÂ’ll Meet Again.” He has even begun referring to his nickname, Darth Vader, noting that it “is one of the nicer things IÂ’ve been called recently.”
    Darth shook his fist against Iran again on Sunday, calling Tehran “the world’s most active state sponsor of terror” and vowing “serious consequences.”
    Yet the administration’s policy in northern Iraq is another adventure in hypocrisy, according to a story yesterday by The Times’s Richard Oppel. The administration expresses solidarity with Turkey and tries to negotiate when Kurdish militants make raids against the Turks. But when Kurdish guerrillas stalk and kill Iranian forces, “the Americans offer Iran little sympathy.”
    “Tehran even says Washington aids the Iranian guerrillas, a charge the United States denies,” Oppel writes.
    The neocons who have their heart set on bombing Iran to stop IÂ’m-a-Dinner-Jacket and the mullahs from getting nuclear capability were thrilled and emboldened by the placid reaction to the Israeli air strike on Syria.
    The hawks are pounding the drums on Iran as they once did on Iraq, acting as if the hourglass is running out and we have to act immediately or, as the president apocalyptically suggested last week, we could be facing World War III.
    Or World War IV, as Norman Podhoretz, a neocon who is a top Giuliani adviser, says. Podhoretz urges bombing Iran “as soon as it is logistically possible” and likened Ahmadinejad to Hitler, as Poppy Bush did with Saddam.
    Rudy is using his more martial attitude toward Iran as a weapon against Hillary, painting her as a delicate ditherer on the topic, and Obama is using his more diplomatic attitude toward Iran as a weapon against Hillary, painting her as a triangulator and a two-time administration patsy.
    In his new book, the former U.N. Ambassador John Bolton scornfully accuses Colin Powell, and later Condi Rice, of appeasing Iran, including some carrots to get them to cease their nuclear plans.
    A top Bush 41 national security official told me shortly after Bush 43 got under way that the younger Bush team’s foreign policy was dangerous because it was so “black and white,” so dependent on “bogymen.”
    President Bush has settled on his new bogyman, once more ignoring the obvious choice of Osama. Yesterday, he defended his plans to build a missile defense system in Europe by raising the specter of IranÂ’s nuclear ambitions.
    Hit with sticks, the bogyman responded with sticks. He said that Iran will not negotiate with anyone about its right to nuclear technology.
    As Pat Buchanan noted on “Hardball,” “Cheney and Bush are laying down markers for themselves which they’re going to have to meet. I don’t see how … Bush and Cheney can avoid attacking Iran and retaining their credibility going out of office.”
    In other words, once our cowboys have talked their crazy talk, they have to walk their crazy walk.
    –Maureen Dowd

    Reply

  2. Kathleen says:

    All of this is an exercise in charades…
    Busholini is never going to leave office…
    Watch as war with Iran cranks up, and gets going, full bore.
    We’ll have Martial law, etc.

    Reply

  3. Matthew says:

    Steve: Any thoughts on likely/potential cabinet appointments by either Hillary or Rudy?

    Reply

  4. jon says:

    Sure, it’s all fun and games. Until someone pushes someone in front of a train.
    And Giuliani’s just the guy to do it.

    Reply

  5. JohnH says:

    Nothing speaks more to the system being rigged than the fact that there is not a single prominent anti-war candidate, despite polls showing that people have overwhelmingly had it with this war. Ron Paul and Dennis Kucinich have been thoroughly marginalized.
    So it looks like the 2008 election will be a contest between someone who has the potential to lead the country, albeit in a more authoritarian direction (Rudy), and someone who has absolutely no track record of leadership and indecipherable policy positions to boot(Hillary).
    If I were a betting man, I’d put my money on Rudy winning, because I think the American people will opt for someone who apparently has the character of a leader, not someone whose major qualification for the presidency is that she married the right person.
    Either way the Bush legacy will endure, exacerbated by Rudy and prolonged by Hillary’s inexperience and weakness. Bummer.

    Reply

  6. PissedOffAmerican says:

    The presidential primary scam: Why the game is rigged, and why true democracy is only a secondary factor in the nation’s rush to nominate the next president. , Michael Scherer
    Oct. 8, 2007 | WASHINGTON — It’s far worse than you think — worse than hanging chads, faulty Diebold machines, and billionaires who bankroll last-minute attack ads. The American system for nominating a presidential candidate has about as much in common with actual democracy as Donald Duck has with a lake mallard. It’s not just that this year’s primaries have been further front-loaded, or that the early primary states aren’t representative of the nation at large. There is only passing fairness. There is only the semblance of order. There is nothing like equal representation under the law.
    The whole stinking process was designed by dead men in smoky parlors and refined by faceless bureaucrats in hotel conference rooms. It is a nasty brew born of those caldrons of self-interest known as political parties. At every stage, advantage is parceled out like so much magic potion. “The national interest is not considered in any form,” says University of Virginia political scientist Larry Sabato. “Everything is left up to an ad hoc decision. It’s chaotic.”
    That is not an exaggeration. Consider this: If you are a Republican, your vote for the presidential nominee will be worth more in Tennessee than in New York. If you are a Democrat, your vote in the primary will not count in Florida and is unlikely to count in Michigan. If you are a Republican in Wyoming, you probably won’t get to vote at all, since only party officials have a say.
    And it gets worse. This election cycle, a top Democratic candidate shaking someone’s hand in Miami before the end of January is breaking the rules, unless that someone is handing the candidate a check at the same time. To put it another way, Democrats’ communicating with voters has been barred in Florida, but taking money from voters is OK. To put it a third way, the system is not only irrational but offensive to the nation’s most basic values. “The only way that you can hear a candidate campaign is if you are willing to pay a campaign contribution,” explains Steven Geller, Florida’s exasperated state Senate Democratic leader. “It is astounding.”
    They don’t teach all of this in school, because even a fourth-grader would get up from his desk and walk out of the classroom in protest. And where would that leave the nation, if all the 10-year-olds knew their political system was built on a lie, that empty hooey about all Americans being entitled to a single, equal vote? What would it mean if they knew every time President Bush and President Clinton and President Reagan had bragged about bringing democracy to the world, they were hiding the fact that pure representative democracy has never come to the United States?
    At root, the problem is that primaries are considered by law and tradition to be the internal affairs of political parties. For the most part, the people who designed this calamity have never been elected to anything. They are operatives, organizers, functionaries, a smart set of soldiers who move like marionettes. They lead state parties and sit on committees with names like “Rules and Bylaws.” You have never seen their names in the newspaper, because reporters rarely attend the meetings. And there are dozens of them, so you can’t blame any single person.
    The system they produce is justified in the press, partly because reporters enjoy its results. We like traveling to the early voting states, Iowa, New Hampshire and South Carolina, where candidates have to shake a lot of hands. Voters in these states are unrepresentative of the nation as a whole, but they tend to take presidential politics more seriously. They go to candidate town halls in large numbers and ask smart questions, allowing poorly funded candidates to compete with wealthy candidates on a more level playing field.
    By most estimates, about 190,000 people will participate in the Iowa caucuses, with another 1.2 million or so marking ballots in New Hampshire and South Carolina. That’s about 1.4 million people in a nation of 301 million, or one-half of 1 percent.
    When these early states start voting in January, the rest of the nation will begin to pay attention. If tradition holds, the candidates who win the early contests will have a huge advantage. With some luck, both parties will unite behind a single consensus nominee within a month, all but making the ballots in the later states irrelevant. Each party’s leadership prays for this to happen, because if it does not, if for some reason the Democratic or Republican grass roots remains split on a preference after February, then the American people will be forced to see how ugly the whole game really is.
    more….
    http://tinyurl.com/3bpp5c

    Reply

  7. PissedOffAmerican says:

    When are you going to give Ron Paul credit for how he is doing in the polls, or the astounding swell of support he is realizing? Or perhaps you don’t laud his recent resolution calling for the restoration of key tenets of our Constitution?
    We are being sold out, the media is selling us pure unadulterated shit, and is picking our candidates for us.
    And you’re helping them.
    Screw Hillary and Guilianni, they both are corrupt posturing frauds, and will just continue to sell us out. When are you going to advocate for reform, instead of just selling us down the river like the rest of these “connected insider” bastards in Washington are doing?

    Reply

Add your comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *