It doesn't really matter which type of light source you use for still lifes. Both will do the job : Strobes cost more to buy but cost less to run, tungsten usually costs less to buy but eat electricity and generate lots of heat.

The most important consideration is how you intend to model the lights - strobes tend to lend themselves more easily to modification - such as softboxes - because strobe lights generate less heat. Consequently, softboxes for strobes tend to be cheaper since they don't need to be as heat resistant. Softboxes for tungsten are of higher spec, otherwise they represent a fire risk. (Similarly, still life subjects like fruits and flowers, can be susceptible to the heat produced by tungsten, too).

I don't agree with raoul, who says that too much power can be a problem. It depends what and how you are trying to shoot. I regularly shoot extremely small silver jewellery using a 5000joule strobe set up in a small room.
That's not to say I need that much power, just that it isn't a problem.
If necessary, excess power can be reduced by, for instance, thicker diffusion materials or even neutral density filters on the camera. Remember, with tungsten you may need to do long exposures, with strobe, multiple pops can achieve the same effect, using less electricity and generating less heat.
In fact, using a 'blond' would create problems for me in a small room, because of the heat it would generate - I notice you're in Florida where heat output may be a consideration!

Personally, although I have extensive strobe and tungsten lighting kits, I almost always opt for strobe. To be honest, the tungsten only comes out when I'm shooting video. Strobe technology was developed mainly because it was more adaptable than tungsten, however for a beginner it's less familiar territory and this is why beginners often buy tungsten before moving on to strobe.