I'm pleased to see that Howard Dean has fallen back in the Iowa polls. I just don't like the guy; he doesn't seem reliable or consistent. It would be one thing if he had been running on the centrist platform he could have built from his record as Vermont governor, but his entire platform so far seems to be anti-Iraq war and anti-Bush. While I agree with that, it bothers me that he is displaying such a lack of breadth, not to mention his policy flip-flops. I'd resigned myself to him being the Democratic nominee until last week, when he started slipping. Kerry surprised me by coming out in front. Have Iowans looked at the guy? He's scary. Gephardt's strength is no surprise; he's been a biggie in the Midwest for decades, and his message and consistent adherence to that message make him a no-brainer pick for many Iowans. I was, however, pleasantly surprised by John Edwards's ascent. I don't know that much about him, but what little I do know is encouraging. The only two knocks against him are his relative inexperience and his background as a trial lawyer, which makes him toxic to conservatives. But I guess conservatives would vote against him regardless. I'd be interested to find out what his record of bipartisanship has been in the Senate. Regardless, I'm glad to see Dean getting real competition. I just don't see him taking on Bush and winning. I don't see any of the Democratic candidates doing that at this point, but of those four, I think Dean has the least chance. I don't think Clark and Lieberman are worthy of my consideration.
For me, of course, it's something of a moot point. Texas's electoral vote allocation is a foregone conclusion. I could vote for Erik Estrada for all the difference it would make. That makes somewhat less likely that I would vote for any of the Democratic candidates; I'm more likely to vote for a Green or Libertarian Party candidate just to get their numbers up a tiny bit more.