Will we get a Democrat Presidential Candidate Before the Convention?

[descamisado]

@Whack-a-Mole

Certainly horse trading is a fundamental feature of democratic politics and Obama does it just like any other politician and in no way am I suggesting campaign promises to the electorate is part of that.

The issue is to what degree does a candidate prostitute themselves to gain office? How beholden to others are they upon assuming office? If it comes to having to make a million and one political promises to other politicians to get elected how much have they compromised their own vision to get certain things done? As it stands I think Obama is far less beholden to the establishment than Clinton is. Having to fight for Supers by making endless promises to other politicians to me damages him as a candidate rather than being able to say he is beholden to the voters who got him there.

I disagree slightly. For a sophisticated voter who understands the system at least somewhat (how rare it that?), I don’t think mere horsetrading by a politician, as opposed to outright prostitution, should appear to damage Barack at all.

I remember the eye-opening (eye-popping actually) moment when I learned that the reality of politics was about making deals and tradeoffs to get things done, and not just about debating particular issues and coming to an intellectual middle ground. That’s what I’m talking about here. Right now the traditional reality has become that Washington insiders engage in quid quo pro deals and prostitute themselves simply to gain favors for later personal use, to reward entities other than the people they represent, and to solidify their own power.

People are making the mistake of snarkily implying that Obama is running as a demi-god who is above-it-all, or going to the extreme and saying his message is that, as a politician, he won’t ever do anything other politicians have done.

How could any politician expect to succeed or even function at all without realistically horsetrading? It’s for whom the horsetrading is done and what promises are that’s key here. What Obama, as head of the govrnment, is envisioning and speaking about is a form of government where the ultimate deals are made in the interests of a functioning government, where representatives are able to work out deals with people on both sides of the aisle, for outcomes that speak to and for the people whom that government represents. I’m down with that.

Obama, simply by what he represents, has up to this point appealed to many superdelegates and will continue to draw them to him. That alone already makes him less beholden to the special interests. If in working with the remaining superdelegates, Obama has to engage in some quid quo pro that ultimately gets me some good government, I’m down with that too.

And if, ultimately, I’m projecting my hopes about the future and about the outcome I’ve described here onto him, I’m down with that too.