I think the thing is people have developed the idea that Dean is a one trick pony. His big issue was supposed to be healthcare but is there anyone that associates Dean with healthcare when they hear his name? The Dean people found a niche that worked for them...bash the hell out of Bush on the war in Iraq...which added a lot of momentum but it did change the focus of his campaign and I think moved him over into the realm of foreign policy where he was not as strong as some of the other candidates.

Now I think people have got to the point where, they know Bushco manufactured a war, that the reasons we went were a sham, but the important thing now is what do we do. Knowing Bushco lied is fine but you can't just campaign on "I should be president because the other guy is a liar!"

I think people needed to hear what Dean had to say and it energized them but I think the people, in Iowa at least, considered all this and then thought "Well who is the best guy to lead us out of this mess?"

Dean did a good job pointing things out but the problems Bushco have created are enormous. Can a guy that was the governer of Vermont tackle this? I think the people in Iowa picked the guy they felt was most qualified to do the job. Anyway you cut it Kerry does look best suited to tackle this mess.

Edwards is a good man for sure. He picked up a lot of support I think because his people are running a positive campaign. Dean has been mired in attacks from his opponents and firing back. I think people really are sick of that kind of crap and the numbers in Iowa showed that.

Edwards is using the "Two Americas" thing...which is basically something Kevin Phillips recommends...saying that there is one America for the wealthy and one for everybody else. I think Edwards and Phillips are right about going in this direction because with stuff like this Enron thing, Halliburton ties, secret energy commissions, sweetheart deals for the coal industry, pharmacuetical companies, wranglings with the steel industry, and on and on...the evidence is right there in front of the American people that their best interests are not being served by the current administration and government in general.

I've always been worried that Kerry would be a tough sell to the vast majority of America...not because of his record or who he is and what he's about...but because he just is not a guy who makes good soundbites and is not the best "TV Candidate". Kerry tends to ramble on and on about the issues and give you all the different sides of a topic...putting some people to sleep...but it's because he really does know the issues so well that he can do this. Of, course the "Massachusetts Liberal" tag will be hung around his neck by the GOP and it's always a concern how that's gonna play in the South. 

I guess you could argue that Bush was never good on TV. He's a lousy public speaker and seems pretty restricted as far as being off the cuff with remarks...I think he has to stay very close to what's been scripted for him. Probably why the guy does so few press conferences and when he does usually stonewalls any question that pushes him or throws him off the script. It's great that he doesn't read the newspapers. Tonight we get his SOTU.

Also if you are comparing resumes of all the candidates Kerry's out in front in that department. Bush may have prefered to face Dean because they could compete at the "resume level" sort of...but against Kerry, Bush looks like he should be looking for work at Wal-Mart not in the oval office.

One last thing I really like about Kerry and Edwards...unlike Clark, Lieberman, and even Dean (with his Gore endorsement)...they are not running on the Clinton coattails. They are about being their own men and bringing something new to the table...not just Clinton scraps reheated. Anyway, I've rambled too much but I was happy with the outcome in Iowa.