Tyler's Turn Blog

Listen to commentators, particularly liberal commentators, and you'll hear people stumbling over their words as they talk about the . . . um . . . . Clinton campaign. What you're hearing in that "um" is a mind racing as it thinks, "Don't say Hillary. Don't say Hillary." Because, as any good feminist knows, it's bad form to call a woman by her first name when one is using surnames to talk about her male counterparts. One says, "Obama, Clinton, and McCain" not "Obama, Hillary, and McCain."

The problem is that Hillary has spent millions of dollars drilling her first name into everyone's minds. She has good reason to do this: First, she wants people to know that she's running and not Bill (although she's happy to say "we" when taking credit for any good things Bill did while in office). Second, her advisers have told her she has a problem with seeming aloof and harsh, and they think using her fist name in advertising softens her image.

Admittedly, it's not an important observation, but it's something that keeps me entertained while the pundits drone on. Listen for the "um." It's always there.

Whatever happens for the rest of this election, the primary season so far has renewed my optimism for our country. In both parties, the candidate most willing to compromise with the other party has a good chance of winning the nomination. And, in both parties, the hardliners are screaming mad.

I had a conversation with a Republican friend the other day, and her big beef against McCain is that he was part of the Gang of Fourteen. That was the bipartisan group of Senators who kept the 109th Congress from getting rid of the filibuster. I explained that the 110th Republicans have used the filibuster 72 times, so McCain's compromise was actually good for his party, but she wouldn't hear of it. Rush, et al, have convinced her that compromise is evil, even if being hardnosed means "going nuclear" and killing everyone.

I hear the same kind of rhetoric from people opposed to Obama. They want someone who knows how to scrap with the Republicans -- mostly because eight years of Rovian politics, preceded by four years of the Gingrich Revolution, has convinced them that nothing else is possible -- and Clinton is nothing if not a scrapper. They also like Clinton's hardliner rhetoric on things like healthcare reform.

I, on the other hand, am tired of the Red State/Blue State divide, and I think talking to my opponents is a good thing. As a registered Independent, living in a decidedly Purple State, I'd love to see some compromise among our political classes, and I think this primary is showing that there are a lot of Americans like me out there.

We Independents are tired of one-plank partisans yanking the parties around by their noses. We'll even vote for someone who disagrees with us on some issues (no one stands for everything I want), as long as the candidate is willing to turn off the tap on the bile that has poisoned our country for too long.