David Corn

Here's some good news for Dick Cheney. Pollster John Zogby reports:

A majority of likely voters--52%--would support a U.S. military strike to prevent Iran from building a nuclear weapon, and 53% believe it is likely that the U.S. will be involved in a military strike against Iran before the next presidential election, a new Zogby America telephone poll shows....

Democrats (63%) are most likely to believe a U.S. military strike against Iran could take place in the relatively near future, but independents (51%) and Republicans (44%) are less likely to agree. Republicans, however, are much more likely to be supportive of a strike (71%), than Democrats (41%) or independents (44%). Younger likely voters are more likely than those who are older to say a strike is likely to happen before the election and women (58%) are more likely than men (48%) to say the same--but there is little difference in support for a U.S. strike against Iran among these groups.

It's interesting that more Dems than Republicans suspect George W. Bush and Cheney are about to bomb Iran. Obviously, they're thinking wag-the-dog.

My hunch is that Cheney and the Cheney-bots in the administration want to take care of Iran--so to speak--before January 20, 2009. And I doubt that polling means much to the veep and his henchmen and henchwomen. Cheney probably cares little about public opinion and likely believes he will be judged favorably by historians down the road. (Otherwise, how can he get up in the mornings?) But if Bush et. al. are contemplating a strike against Iran, polls such as these certainly don't make the decision any tougher.

There was also good news in the poll for Hillary Clinton:

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....

Clinton leads strongly among Democrats on the issue, with 35% saying she is best equipped to deal with Iran, while 17% would prefer Obama and 7% view John Edwards as the best choice. Giuliani is the top choice of Republicans (28%), followed by McCain (21%) and Fred Thompson (9%). One in five independents chose Clinton (21%) over McCain (16%) and Giuliani (11%).

Clinton better able to handle Iran than Giuliani? Now, that's reassuring for the Clinton campaign and discouraging for the Obama campaign. If this poll is a reliable indicator, it seems that Clinton is projecting strength as a candidate. That's indeed what the first serious female presidential candidate must do. Judging from this poll, much of the public might be happy to see Cheney (and Bush) hit Iran--and then want to see Clinton come in to clean up the mess. Talk about a new take on the cliche that the Republicans are the Daddy Party and the Democrats are the Mommy Party.