I wish I could celebrate the latest poll results from Iowa (http://www.kcci.com/politics/13763159/detail.html), since my preferred candidate is leading the pack, but, hey, we get over five more months of polling before the caucus, so I wonder why anyone aside from the campaign staffs care.

At any rate, the recent squabble 'twixt Hillary Clinton (22%) and Barack Obama (16%) may be the cause of their six-point slides, and it is easy enough to say that John Edwards' success at 27%, a one-point rise over May figures, comes from his continued focus on Iowa.

In the meantime, Mitt Romney leads the GOP race at 25%, a jump of nine, and Hollywood-elitist non-candidate Fred Thompson moves into second at 14%. Hizzoner lost four points to 13%, and McCain continues to crash and burn at 10%.

Quote of the day? Political analyst Dennis Goldford notes, "Republicans overall have not been as happy with their field of candidates at this point."

Goshy-gee, Mr. Goldford, do they pay you for such remarkable insights?

Edwards, Obama, and Clinton all have the numbers to beat GOP challengers, but then again, this is a small sample and the caucus is still months away.

Edwards looks like the only one with well defined policies.

What are the major factors against his possible selection?

Just as you said, it's WAY, WAY too early for the numbers to mean anything at all. There's more than enough time left for several of them to shoot themselves in the foot - at this point I wouldn't place a single dime on any one of them...

The only thing I take from this poll is that Hillary and Barack are doing no good for themselves with their current war of words. The Democrats are attempting to posture themselves for some abstract sense of dignity, and it seems the voters are at least slightly put off by the early exhibition.

Edwards looks like the only one with well defined policies.

What are the major factors against his possible selection?

It's actually going to be, on the one hand, quite interesting to watch. To the other, the fascination will be a morbid one. Critics are prepared to seize on his legal career, except that this puts them in the position where they might be maligning grievously-injured children. There was, in 2004, some attack against the science involved in his verdicts, but this was largely political in its expression. Expect to see him blamed for medical malpractice insurance costs, probably described as a crisis, in North Carolina and then the whole of the nation. I so wanted him to be the nominee in 2004. He would have carved Bush in the debates and it would have been over.

Stay tuned.

I've done a bit of homework myself on the candidates running for President. To me, the best Republican running is Ron Paul, and the best Democrat running is Mike Gravel. It sucks to see Gravel so low in the election numbers, and evidently, it looks as if he has no chance. What a shame. Gravel has some great ideas, and isn't a pussy when it comes to pointing out to the problems and who's to blame.

Iowa doesn't mean anything like it once did. John Mccain won Iowa on 2000. So there you go.