Campaigning is reaching a fever pitch in most camps and the voter turnout expectation is growing. 130,000 Democratic voters are expected and 80,000 Republicans. Candidates have been mostly positive in their recent efforts at attracting voters, at least on the Democratic side. Republicans Romney and Huckabee are still going at it with Huckabee maintaining that he is not going to fire back at Romney’s critical ads, and then previewing a commercial in which he does just that. (He did tell reporters the commercial would not air in Iowa.)

Democratic voters have reported receiving phone calls from “pollsters” in which certain candidates were painted in a not so nice light. Hillary would cost the Democrats the election in November if she won the nom, Edwards plan for Iraq would be disastrous, and Obama would deny health insurance to millions of Americans. There were even calls reminding voters of the very important Orange Bowl that was airing on Thursday. So far no one has claimed responsibility for these calls.

My favorite candidate, Kucinich, has urged his supporters to throw their votes toward Obama if he does not meet the cutoff point for voting in the caucuses. The reason behind the support of Obama? His message of change. Obama has shown an amazing ability to garner new supporters from groups that traditionally do not have a high voter turnout. He is a charismatic speaker but his idealism and naivety make him hard for me to support.

William is an ardent supporter of Clinton, and there are times that I agree with him. She has come out strong in the past few days pounding her message home that she alone has the experience needed to start off right as President, she would move decisively on the issues that matter most to Americans, such as her incredibly good health care plan, and she really does come across as a nominee who really cares. To combat this, Obama had a former Clinton supporter introduce him at an event, stating that the “positive” tone of Obama’s campaign is what drew him in.

Personally, I haven’t found Obama’s campaign to be positive overall. In almost every debate and speaking engagement there is a point in which it feels that he is campaigning solely around the fact that he has always been against the Iraq War and Hillary wasn’t. Now, I find it refreshing that there are candidates who have always had better sense than to support this illegal war, however; being against something in the beginning and having a good plan to end it now are two very different things. I have not always agreed with the way that Clinton has handled the fact that she did vote for military action in Iraq, I felt strongly that she should have apologized. I also stopped supporting her when she voted for the Kyl/Lieberman amendment.

Every time something bad happens in the Middle East (which is quite a bit it seems) Obama finds a way to blame it on Hillary’s vote for force. It is very important to keep in mind the context in which Congress voted for the use of force in Iraq. It was at a time when the majority of their constituents supported the proposal, America was grieving, the president was enjoying high approval ratings, and not many people thought that our administration would outright lie to us. The job of a Senator is to represent their constituency, something that she did to the best of her ability at the time and a majority of Congress did as well.

I feel strongly that Obama would be best served by showing us that he in fact has the experience, diplomacy, and fortitude to be our next president. I am not convinced that he has any of those things at this point and I am not one who is convinced merely by rhetoric.

So how is Edwards dealing with his third place position? By a drastic new plan to end the US occupation of Iraq of course! In an interview yesterday Edwards called for the withdrawal of almost all US troops, including those training the Iraqi military and police, within 10 months. This has been a topic in which Edwards’ view has evolved over time, much like the rest of America. He also voted for the use of force, later apologized for it, recommended a gradual reduction of troops over time, and now, citing the failure of the Iraqi government over the last four years, wants to pull virtually every US troops. He would make allowances for 3,500-5,000 troops to protect the US Embassy and possibly some humanitarian workers. (( Edwards Calls For Pullout of Troops Training Iraqis ~ MSN ))

Democrats Joseph Biden and Chris Dodd have already mentioned dropping out of the race if they do not garner enough support in Iowa, which would narrow this bitterly contested playing field in time for the New Hampshire Primary.

I am excited to see that the political process is generating so much enthusiasm and involvement this time around. There isn’t a single Democratic candidate that I believe could not be a good President. I do support Kucinich above them all but I could feel comfortable voting for any of them in the November election. Stay tuned for our continued coverage of the Iowa caucuses and the ongoing election process and let us know your thoughts.

~ Summer ~ WWJV4.com

“Actually, just look at what Osam – Barack Obama – said just yesterday. Barack Obama, calling on radicals, jihadists of all different types, to come together in Iraq. That is the battlefield. … It’s almost as if the Democratic contenders for president are living in fantasyland. Their idea for jihad is to retreat, and their idea for the economy is to also retreat. And in my view, both efforts are wrongheaded.”

Romney was apparently referring to an audio take supposedly recorded by Osama Bin Laden released the day before. I understand that mistakes happen but this seems a little fishy to me. It was during a time when he was criticizing the dems for their foreign relations and economic stances. It just seems to me that this time it is more than a simple mistake. I would go so far as to say I believe it was a well thought out “mix-up”.

The conservative right, who are not all that great thinking on their own, are easily led astray by clever word games. Even if they understand that Obama is in no way affiliated with Osama they will still see that there is a lot alike in the two names so he must at least be soft on terrorism if not involved himself.

The deceptive word play is a tactic that the Right adheres to almost religiously so we shouldn’t be surprised by this. Apparently Obama’s camp weren’t surprised either. Spokesman Bill Burten had this to say;

“Apparently, Mitt Romney can switch names just as casually as he switches positions, but what’s wrongheaded is continuing a misguided war in Iraq that has left America less safe.”

“The values of my faith are much like, or are identical to, the values of other faiths that have a Judeo-Christian philosophical background,” he said at a campaign event in New Hampshire this month. “They’re American values, if you will.” ~ Source

Adapting to fit the desires of his voters is really just standard operating procedure for Romney. In his 1994 campaign in strongly liberal Massachusetts Romney was a strong gay rights supporter, going so far as to claim he would be better at protecting gay rights than Edward M Kennedy (D). “If we are to achieve the goals we share, we must make equality for gays and lesbians a mainstream concern,” Romney wrote. “My opponent cannot do this. I can and will.” Today Romney has taken a complete turnaround and is now campaigning on the opposite ideals, even throwing his old buddy Larry Craig under the bus as soon as word came out of his gay sex sting arrest and guilty plea.

This transformation from moderate to hard line conservative is not restricted to just gay rights. He also supported abortion rights and attempted to distance himself from Reagan during that 1994 campaign and voted for Paul Tsongas (D) in 1992. While evolving morals and ideals are understandable on one or two issues, to completely change from one ideology to the opposing ideology is suspect. Combine that with the fact that both stances match the views of his voters and it is strongly suspect. ( Source )

The real question is whether or not conservatives are willing to buy it. They have been starved for a good candidate after holding out hope for Grandpa Fred only to have him take a nap on them. Giuliani is unbearable being a pro-gay, anti-gun, pro-choice conservative on his third marriage (we’re confused too) and has conservative Christians threatening to walk out of the party. So maybe the lack of a better alternative will spell a win for Romney.

At least one ultra-conservative organization has fallen into bed with Romney. He recently won the endorsement of Robert R. Taylor, Dean of the fundamentalist Bob Jones University. Bob Jones University, which gained infamy for its ban on interracial dating, had its pick of rich white guys to endorse and even an ordained minister. However they passed them up in favor of a Mormon, which University President called a “cult” in 2000. (Source)

I guess time will tell if Romney has succeeded in blending in to his target voters enough to gain their confidence. In the mean time Romney is sure spending like a religious conservative. He has spent $21.3 million over the summer while raising only $9.5 million. Looks like the whole fiscal responsibility thing never really sinks in with so called conservatives.

*10/16/07 – William: Edited to fix links *

What will this mean for the GOP? Considering that exit polls on election day in 2004 showed that 22% of voters labeled themselves Evangelical Christian, it would probably secure a Democratic win. That is, if Dobson could muster enough of them to defy their ingrained Republican voting tradition.

I was watching Face the Nation on Sunday and the guest was Tony Perkins, President of the Family Research Council. He appeared to back peddle a bit on Dobson’s statement by stating, “What we said last week was more of a proclamation of principle rather than a declaration of intent.” He then stated that “If the party chooses to break its commitment to creating a culture of life, we’re not going to go in that direction with the party.” during a conference call on Thursday with reporters. To me this sounds pretty much like an intention.

On Face the Nation, Perkins went on to say that the Conservative movement is comparable to a three legged stool the Fiscal Conservatives, the Foreign Policy Conservatives, and the Social Conservatives. He implored the other 2/3 of the party to throw their support to the Social Conservatives and their anti-choice agenda. Without all three legs they will “impale” themselves. Thursday, Perkins stated that he believed roughly half of the Religious Right would vote for Giuliani anyway but that’s still a lot of votes to lose.

So what will this mean for the Democrats? Probably a bigger win over the Republican nominee. Unless, that is, Mitt Romney starts climbing faster. He appears to be the Evangelicals’ favorite at this time with Perkins stating Thursday, “he’s one of the strongest on our issues. It’s true he has had a change of position on these issues. I do believe they’re genuine. I do not see him going back.”