by Andrew Malcolm
Here's a new poll that might mean something. Though darned if we know what right now.
Parents.com recently polled 1,006 parents on all kinds of issues that worry them about raising children -- Internet predators, school bullies, healthcare costs and a bunch of other stuff you don't want to think about once your kids graduate from high school.
But they also asked those same parents which presidential candidate they would most trust to babysit their child?
And which presidential candidate they would least trust to babysit their child?
Who do you think won? And lost?
Turns out, Hillary Clinton both won and lost. And that surprises you?
Twenty-six percent of parents said they would most trust her to babysit, but 25% said they'd least trust her. How's that for a split electorate? Are we headed to the Supreme Court again -- Clinton vs Clinton?
In terms of most trusted, None came in second with 19%, Barack Obama third with 13%, Don't Know at 12%, followed by Rudy Giuliani at 9%, Fred Thompson at 6%, Mitt Romney and John Edwards at 5%, John McCain at 4% and Refused at 2%.
Now, in terms of least trusted to babysit, it's not all that different with Don't Know at 19%, None at 13%, Giuliani 13%, McCain 7%, Obama and Thompson at 6%, Edwards at 5%, Romney at 4% and good old Refused still at 2%.
Unfortunately, every one of them is likely to be busy for the next many weekends. So don't call them; they'll call you.
Andrew Malcolm writes for Top of the Ticket, the Los Angeles Times political blog.
• 
• 
• 
Comments
(Insert your favorite Fred Thompson "robbing the cradle" joke here)
Posted by: AJF | November 12, 2007 2:51 PM
"...which presidential candidate they would least trust to babysit their child?"
The discourse continues to deteriorate. We're occupying a country on the other side of the world at over a billion a day, and we're discussing babysitting. The MSM should be ashamed. This is NOT NEWS. Who cares.
Posted by: weinerdog43 | November 12, 2007 2:52 PM
1000% with weinerdog43 on this
Posted by: july | November 12, 2007 3:22 PM
It's a shame that the campaign has been reduced to this. What most of us want to know is whether the candidates are willing to put America ahead of their own personal interests, re-establish a middle class that has a shot at the "gold ring", and secure our borders to name a few important points. I think we all hope the nominees hit at least a few of the points that are important to us.
"Who's taking you for a ride?"
http://fraudvictimalert.typepad.com/
Posted by: fraudvictimalert | November 12, 2007 3:30 PM
Once again the man most qualified to be Babysitter-in-Chief, OB/GYN Ron Paul, is overlooked by the MSM. You treat him as if he was Senator Paul Simon.
Why? Because neither of them has a real last name??!??
You just made me send another crisp $1 bill to his campaign.
Posted by: Smirky McFlightsuit | November 12, 2007 4:12 PM
I wouldn't trust any politician to babysit my child, least of all one running for President. I would be concerned about such items as:
1) Pre-emptive spankings
2) Too many baby monitors, even in the diaper
3) Putting fear in the heart of the child for obedience of the house rules.
4) Pouring cough syrup in the milk to make certain the child goes to sleep while he/she plans for the next day.
On the other hand, the Bush administration has treated Americans like naive, innocent babes who needed sitting. Goo Goo Daa Daa
Posted by: the truth | November 12, 2007 4:14 PM
But woulsd you trust Senator Clinton's husband with your babysitter?
Posted by: Terry | November 12, 2007 4:18 PM
Geez, the world must be coming to an end as I actually agree with weinerbrain. Silly question, silly issue, silly Swamp item!
But then I am not surprised because the media looks at the government as our caretakers, our daddies and mummies (right John E?), so asking a dumb question like this is right up their alley.
Posted by: John D | November 12, 2007 4:39 PM