It occrus to me that I have not yet posted about the abysmal showing in the Iowa caucus, and so I must warn you that this will be a political post.

Howard Dean has misstepped in his campaign. I totally agree with that. He can be a scary man--it's true. I still feel that, at this point, he has shown what nearly all the other candidates have not. Dean is passionate, fiery, and won't back down from the Bizarro-World Republicans who run this country. Al Sharpton is the only other candidate who does this, and since he doesn't have a prayer, I stand firm in the Dean camp.

I suppose "firm" isn't quite the word for it; indeed, my support for Dean has wavered. He's getting wackier. However, I hope that he is merely overexcitable, that his outbursts are displays of undue passion for his cause, and that he can learn to control himself. I don't feel that it would be appropriate to pull my support from him now. (Yeah, I can feel a contradiction coming.)

The simple fact is this: Howard Dean has convictions, and it truly does seem that he doesn't base those convictions on what is popular. I don't agree with the man on everything. For example, his position on gun control is not one that I can support. And yet, when faced with his positions on the war, energy sources, and fiscal responsibility, I do agree with him, and it is for this reason that I have supported him.

Yes, I find myself looking even more closely at other candidates now. I am prepared to make a change of loyalties if Howard doesn't clean up his act. I would feel traitorous if this had to be done, but Mr. Dean, your actions are concerning me.

No one has won me over just yet. I can't support John Kerry; his hair's been tamed, but he still had it (never trust a man who blow-dries his hair). Kerry seems so inhuman, somehow, and I have a hard time determining just where his intentions lie. Who is he really? Dean always had a bit of a "fuck you" attitude, an I find it hard to accept Kerry's now that it's come out at such a convenient time. Perhaps I have misjudged Kerry; it's hard to tell. The coming weeks will help me make a more accurate analysis of his character.

John Edwards has the most sloppily organized campaign that I am old enough to remember. It's not that I don't like the man, it's just that I'm still woefully uninformed about him. I don't know "what he can do for me," and his campaign doesn't seem to be trying very hard to tell me. Maybe I just haven't been interested enough in Edwards in the first place; maybe it's just that I'm not listening to him.

Wesley Clark...General Wesley Clark...two words for you: Um, no.

Joe Lieberman, how can I explain this to you? I don't like you. You're kind of a jackass. There, I said it. Joseph Lieberman, you bother me. If I had to pick a candidate that I could never trust, you can be damn well sure that it's Lieberman. Don't get me wrong; it's not a religious issue in the slightest. It's just that Lieberman seems so underhanded in the way he delivers his message. Perhaps I'm still a bit miffed because of his attack-dog attitude toward Howard Dean, perhaps it's just that he seems so whiny. Maybe it's that he always seems about to declare that he's a victim of the system. Lieberman, I just can't get behind you.

I'm not even going to bother with the others--I've covered the front-runners. I do apologize for the rambling, disorganized nature of this post, and for the changes in audience in the last paragraph. I guess that my brain is just too cloudy right now for me to properly say what I mean to say. It's hard for me to explain what I'm feeling on political issues at this point in time. Frankly, I'm confused myself.

You know what? I'm leaving the Dean link where it is.