I’ve been silent on this issue because I’m still undecided. It’s a 8-way race. By all accounts, there are only three or four top contenders, but this is bloody primary. If you like dirty politics, TN-03 is the race to follow.

District three encompasses a slice of East Tennessee, and the Democrats can barely get people to turn out for a pancake breakfast. The winner of the Republican primary will likely win the general.  This makes the August 1 primary even more tense.

And tense may be the best word to describe the race.

Swirling rumors, national TV appearances, fights over endorsements, presidential contender visits, and mud-slinging press releases. Folks, this is the stuff of political satire. Christopher Buckley couldn’t spin a better tale.

Today on Twitter, I joked with Joe Lance and Dan Lehr that I should write a novel based on the race or at least the screenplay for a telenovela. It’s that juicy.

Depending on who I talk to, a different person is in the lead. I’ve talked to people following the race in DC and people back in Chattanooga.

Robin Smith appears to be running a smart campaign. A little heavy on the attack releases, but not out of line for a tight race. I confess to loving the “Send Mrs. Smith to Washington” bumper stickers.

Were this election cycle normal, I believe she would be the clear front-runner. After all, she’s a former TNGOP chair, a conservative woman and has high name ID. Her campaign has done all the right things and gotten prominent endorsements from organizations that I respect.

But this is not a normal campaign year.

Van Irion captures the essence of a tea party candidate. I also like him. He capitalized brilliantly on his class-action lawsuit to sue Obamacare, and he has the favor of Ron Paul supporters. As I’ve said before, never underestimate Paul fans.

He leans a little too libertarian for me on several issues (i.e. Fair Tax), but I believe that either he or Smith would do a great job of representing the conservative values in district three.

Then there’s Chuck Fleischmann.

Granted, I’m a little bias against self-funding candidates. As a grassroots person, I naturally side with the underdog. I dislike it when candidates can flood the airwaves with TV commercials and essentially buy a seat in Congress (ahem, Corker). Since most people are apathetic until close to election day, they vote for the wealthy candidate since he or she is the only recognizable name on the ballot. This campaign trick has turned the Senate into a millionaires’ club.

I think that strategy captures everything that is wrong with American elections. Also applauding Bob Corker is one way to ensure that I won’t vote for you.

I’m also wary of any candidate who spends money on a TV ad in a congressional primary race in 2010, especially for a smaller district like TN-03 (small by comparison to many other districts in America). Again, I work in online politics, but the ROI on TV ads is just not worth it. I’ll be disappointed if the other candidates follow suit.

Interestingly, none of the three prominent candidates have used online ads or ad words. Coming off the heels of the Rick Perry victory in Texas, I find that extremely surprising. Perry only engaged in digital media and didn’t use traditional advertising. It’s troublesome that in 2010 they haven’t engaged online as thoroughly as they should. (Update: The Smith campaign informs that they do have online ads going, and it sounds like they’re going well.)

It is interesting that camp Fleischmann accuses Smith of having the support of “D.C. backers.” A former candidate for RNC chair is the campaign manager. Do you get anymore insider? Hello! Pot meet kettle. Also, would Huckabee have any clue who Chuck Fleischmann was without the Saltsman connection? That alone makes the endorsement ring false and come across as a personal favor.

However fishy that endorsement appears, I would warn Smith’s campaign from making too big of a deal out of it. They’re quick to flood inboxes with statements on endorsements. It comes across as whiny that she lost Huckabee when Smith has gotten numerous other ones.

Then there are questions about fundraising, but I haven’t had time to delve into FEC reports, so I can’t comment.

However, all of those issues are insider politics. The average voter is not following campaign drama.

Given the bloodbath between Smith and Fleischmann (read Chattanoogan’s opinion section for a taste), voters may be turned off by all of the negativity. Also, with the high animosity towards incumbents and “establishment” candidates, voters may turn out support for Irion. Never come between a ballot box and a Ron Paul supporter.

A primary like this will come down to who has the best get out the vote operation. Primaries typically  have low voter turnout, and this race is dominated by one political party, giving independents very little reason to cast a ballot. Since I’m not on the ground, and I’m far from being a campaign insider for any of the candidates, I can’t predict the answer.

With Zach Wamp running for governor this year, the race for the TN-03 Congressional seat is heating up.

Tomorrow, all of the GOP candidates will face-off at the LiberTea Debate at Woodland Park Baptist Church at 2 p.m. A candidate forum will immediately follow from 4-5 p.m.

My friends over at Chattarati will be covering the event live, so if you’re stuck in the snow, tune into Chattarati.com to watch the debate with all of the GOP candidates.

The district has gotten more conservative since Wamp took office, so the primary victor is likely to win the general election in November. Local debates like this are critical.

With a six-way race, victory will boil down to name recognition and get out the vote efforts. Since turnout is generally low for primaries, the candidate with the strongest grassroots effort will probably win.

Robin Smith has the best name ID through her work with the TN GOP. Active Republicans, the most likely primary voters, are used to getting emails from her.

The other day, I noticed Van Irion‘s Facebook page. I think he’s made the critical mistake of running with “Vote for Van” as a slogan. In East Tennessee, “Van” generally refers to Van Hilleary, who caused a nasty three-way primary in the 2006 Senate race and keeps losing whenever he runs. If you’re an emerging politician, it’s best not to be associated with the guy who always loses.

To be honest, I’m not that familiar with the other candidates–Art Rhodes, Tommy Crangle, Tim Gobble, and Chuck Fleischmann. Of all the candidates, Robin Smith’s campaign has been the only one to proactively reach out to me as a blogger. I’m more familiar with her since I’m on her email list and met her at the Hamilton County Tea Party last April 15. I believe that I also met Tommy Crangle at an event that I spoke at last year.

The GOP has the upper-hand in this election even without the current national anger directed towards Democrats. Since the seat is solidly R, TN-03 voters need to make sure that we elect a strong conservative.

Beyond a steady rightward shift and an increasingly reactionary rhetoric, conservative leadership is taking on another characteristic — it’s becoming more female. Both nationally and in Tennessee, the most beloved and vocal conservative leaders these days seem to be women.

Memo to Kleinheider: conservative women have always been here.  His comments confuse me. Does he not closely follow Tennessee and national politics? The existence of women on the right is hardly new:

Women need to be embraced as leaders — but not out of fear or necessity. It should happen the right way, or else the Right will merely be seen as a bunch of weak-willed reactionary little boys sending their women out to do their fighting for them.

Michele Bachmann was elected before Sarah Palin. Marsha Blackburn’s been involved in Tennessee politics for a long time now. Robin Smith was chairwoman of the TN GOP before Palin was on the scene. In order to have so many women running in 2010 means that women have been working up the ranks of the party and active in their communities for many years. It takes a long time to build up the name recognition, fundraisers and social capital to run for office. I’m surprised that he failed noticed that.

In fact, Republicans and conservatives have seen many of the “first” women across a number of categories. Labels and identity politics are just not as important to us. Just because the media suddenly noticed that women were in the conservative movement, doesn’t mean that we weren’t always there. Most of my political viewpoints come directly from my mother, who became a staunch conservative in the early 80s.  We’ve always been here. Now we’re getting the recognition that we deserve.

Palin is the catalyst not the movement.

Ironically, we owe it to the feminists and liberals in Congress for galvanizing all of the suddenly-visible conservative women that are shocking! Kleinheider.

This movement didn’t start with Sarah Palin nor will it end with her. Palin was the catalyst and should be analyzed, but the media, liberals and bloggers need to look at the bigger picture. Conservative women have always been in the movement, but Sarah Palin was the first woman to resonate with us. Prior to Palin, I always admired Elizabeth Dole. However, she was a DC insider with an Ivy League education. I could admire her (and the struggles she faced at Yale) but couldn’t identify with her. When Palin arrived, we had someone who reflected us.

Had the media and feminists said, “Great. The conservative movement is finally acting on what we’ve been preaching for 30 years,” I doubt that conservative women would now be so vocal. It was the the angry reaction of the feminist movement and the media that attacked Palin,  her family and her education. Suddenly liberals questioned if a woman could work and raise a large family. Her state education was ridiculed and her middle class existence was mocked. Those were the strengths that Palin represented. She was conservative and lived a very different lifestyle from the career politicians and bi-coastal elites, who are constantly telling us how to live.

By mocking Palin and what she represented, the media and feminists were collectively slapping the faces of every conservative woman in the country. This outrage is what motivated the  conservative women’s movement to come together, and what I’ve been writing about for over a year now.

This anger motivated countless numbers of bloggers. My friend, Tabitha Hale,  started her blog directly because of Palin. It led Teri Christoph to start Smart Girl Politics. It motivated a number of women who are now running for office.

Palin wasn’t the only factor though. Conservative women, just like conservative men, are angry at the government and our free-spending Congress. Women are just as involved as men in the Tea Party. The policies and activities of the Bush Administration and now the liberals in power are motivating men and women alike to stand up. Perhaps it’s a combination of our “traditional values” and anger that have caused women to be visible.

My dad told me this week, “I’m just as conservative as your mom, but I don’t have time to go to Tea Parties.” Ironically, the traditional values and roles that conservatives have long defended are what free women up to be active in the Tea Party movement. If Congressman Blackburn noticed that Tea Parties are largely female, it’s because there are more housewives on the right. My mom has always been a conservative activist because she had the time. If women control most of the purchasing power in this country, is it surprising that we’re actively protesting the wasteful actions of our government? Tea Parties are a reflection of the masses of Americans waking up to what Congress is doing, not a sudden pink-wash of the right.

Kleinheider, and others like him, should try to do a little research.  Again, this movement didn’t start with Sarah Palin nor will it end with her. My advice to reporters and academics would be to widen your angle beyond Palin, Bachmann and Blackburn. Palin was the catalyst and deserves to be analyze.  It is shortsighted to say that the conservative movement suddenly turned pink. You’re just now noticing us.

Much of the fault lies with academics. As Ronnee Schreiber notes in her book, Righting Feminism, hardly any academic study has been conducted on conservative women…ever. There was a small amount of research done after the failure of the ERA, but they assauged their failure by concluding conservative women are no different than conservative men. Since the 1980s, they’ve assumed that conservative women view politics indentically to men. Since we’re barefoot and pregnant in the kitchen, we vote as our husbands and fathers do. They fail to see that conservative women are independently conservative because that’s the political movement they agree with. Since liberal feminists created the field of gender studies and created cushy jobs for themselves, it makes sense that they wouldn’t research areas that could potentially harm the movement and their sources of income.

To be concluded in Part 2.