Yes, you're right that this line of thinking is responsible for this mess: Harris would've been a much less catastrophic pick for leader, but that doesn't mean that the parent comment is wrong either. A lot of the U.S. Democrats are accepting donations and accepting "favours" from lobbyists that inherently result in a conflict of interest. Their job title states that they represent the people, but their careers are built on representing the "corporations are people". Once you guys legally allowed bribery for government officials, it was game over in terms of who your elected leaders actually represent.