***

Yes, it’s true: Barack Obama’s middle name is the same as the first name of the Iraqi dictator we deposed in 2003. And, for that matter, it’s the same name as the internationally respected king of Jordan who devoted virtually his entire adult life toward establishing peace in the Middle East.

It’s also true that Obama’s Republican opponent has the same first name as the guy who shot Ronald Reagan — and Abraham Lincoln, for that matter.

Does that coincidence of names mean people shouldn’t vote for John McCain? Of course not, but it’s the same logic some people are using to suggest there’s something sinister about Obama.

That’s one of the problems we’ve gotten from the two major presidential candidates (Libertarian Bob Barr is also on the ballot, and seven others are seeking write-in votes in the Texas election): much of the information we’re getting about each candidate is coming from the opposition. McCain is telling us that Obama is a socialist, while Obama wants us to believe McCain is the second coming of George Bush.

Isn’t it better to just get each person’s plans from his own campaign?

Perhaps. Of course, with opinions of Bush running so low, every candidate is promising change, while trying to label the other guy as a mere puppet of his party.

As is the truth with most political stuff, the truth is somewhere in between. Every party is dominated by extremists. If you think about it, that’s to be expected, since those who devote their whole lives to the cause tend to be demagogues. So the party elite tend to be heavily right-wing on the Republican side and wildly liberal on the Democratic side. Opponents, then, can’t resist the urge to paint candidates in the extremist colors that fly early in the campaign season.

Fortunately, voters usually weed out the hard-core disciples during the primaries, leaving general moderates on the general election ballots. That’s why recent elections have been so close. It’s also why even though the parties seem to be so far apart ideologically, in practice they’re hardly indistinguishable.

The question, then, becomes just how independent each candidate really will be if elected, or how much he will feel bound to pursue the goals and ideals of the party he agreed to represent. After all, the party invests heavily in its candidate, and expects support in return.

The final candidates, then, are a compromise, as evidence by the grumblings we’ve heard from each party’s core about their respective nominee. Republican wonks wanted Mitt Romney or Mike Huckabee; hard-core Democrats rallied behind Hillary Clinton and John Edwards. Many Libertarians are concerned that their nominee, as a Republican congressman, didn’t share many of his new party’s views regarding social liberties.

Even compromise, however, is a matter of degree.

It’s a pushmi-pullyu kind of thing. Officials, once elected, are beholden to the party for its support, while the party must accede to the personal charisma and individual positions that got the person elected. A strong candidate, like Bill Clinton, can drive his party toward the kinds of policies the people support, while a weak person like either George Bush can become merely a front for the party machine. In that respect, the ultimate presidency will also be a constant exercise in compromise, placing charisma and diplomatic skill at a premium.

Which will we get from whomever wins today’s election — a strong, independent president who can push his own programs through Congress, or someone who is left to either take or leave what the lawmakers put before him?

It’s hard to know. Obama’s charisma can’t be denied, and he gained his chops getting social programs supported at the local level in Chicago. But the first-term Senator is still a relative newcomer who might not have had the time to build the kind of network that can install him squarely as the leader of his party. McCain has served more than a quarter century in Congress, and was a military liaison to the Senate before that; he certainly has the contacts, and the record. It’s certainly true that he’s stood up to his own party on many key issues. That’s both good and bad; it shows that he doesn’t march in lockstep with his party, but it also shows that on many issues he couldn’t bring the party to support his positions.

So we’ll get our maverick, all right, no matter who gets elected. What remains to be seen is whether or not that maverick will always stand apart from the herd, or get it to follow.

Carlos A. Rodriguez is opinion editor for Valley Freedom Newspapers. Contact him at (956) 982-6681 or by e-mail at crodriguez@brownsvilleherald.com.