Fox News publishes the result of a very interesting poll--one that asks voters whom they would prefer to have as president to deal with a terrorist attack. Rudy Giuliani defeats Hillary Clinton in a slam dunk:
The latest FOX News poll shows that if the United States were hit with a terrorist attack, by a 50 percent to 36 percent margin, Americans would rather have Giuliani in charge than Clinton, including 28 percent of Democrats and an overwhelming 80 percent of Republicans. Independents split in Giuliani's favor 47 percent to Clinton's 28 percent.
The poll question is not exactly the one I would have asked; I would have preferred to see voters answer which candidate they thought was more likely to prevent a terrorist attack. Nevertheless, the poll is noteworthy because it begins to frame the 2008 race in the way that it is actually conducted. Voters will choose a candidate after having thought seriously about the important issues of the day--notably the continued threat of terrorist attack. It ought to concern Democrats that their strongest contender and likely nominee does so poorly on the issue that's likely to be the most important one addressed by the candidates--the war on terror.
The weakness is no surprise however; it's the natural result of all the Democratic candidates having spent months focusing on how to get out of Iraq, while the Republican candidates have focused on explaining their visions for protecting America in the war on terror.
