My honest answer: I love mavericks who vote the way they think is best no matter what the polls say, so long as they maverickly vote the way I want and the polls are against me.

When I'm with the polls, I love a seasoned politico who will vote whatever way the wind is blowing.

I admit it, I like people who do what I want and I get mad at them when they don't. It's probably a good thing to admit that.

More seriously: it is an age old question, isn't it? We elect these people for their judgment and the public's wants are never so clear that they can reliably follow the majority will anyway. Some people tell me the majority wants a public option and some people tell me that the majority doesn't. I'm convinced a public option makes sense and so first I look to politicians who agree with me that it makes sense. For those who don't, I want to know why. If they disagree with me based on the evidence I can give them something of a pass so long as I know they're thinking.

You are of course speaking of an 'ideal' world where corporations have not bought and paid for representatives and given them all sorts of perks and promises... so, yes in an 'ideal' world, I would expect my representives to consider the perspectives and needs of their constituents, the district, state, etc. and the best interests of their party, the country, the environment, the world.. all of it and make their best judgment.

Reality appears to be very different however.

I line up with Franken, who lined up with Edmund Burke, the English Parliamentarian who lined up with the American side in the American Revolution.

As for the trifling petulance, which the rage of party stirs up in little minds, though it should shew itself even in this court, it has not made the slightest impression on me. The highest flight of such clamorous birds is winged in an inferior region of the air.
*****
Certainly, Gentlemen, it ought to be the happiness and glory of a Representative, to live in the strictest union, the closest correspondence, and the most unreserved communication with his constituents. Their wishes ought to have great weight with him; their opinion high respect; their business unremitted attention. It is his duty to sacrifice his repose, his pleasures, his satisfactions, to theirs; and, above all, ever, and in all cases, to prefer their interest to his own. But, his unbiassed opinion, his mature judgement, his enlightened conscience, he ought not to sacrifice to you; to any man, or to any sett of men living. These he does not derive from your pleasure; no, nor from the Law and the Constitution. They are a trust from Providence, for the abuse of which he is deeply answerable. Your Representative owes you, not his industry only, but his judgement; and he betrays, instead of serving you, if he sacrifices it to your opinion.

My worthy Colleague says, his Will ought to be subservient to yours. If that be all, the thing is innocent. If Government were a matter of Will upon any side, yours, without question, ought to be superior. But Government and Legislation are matters of reason and judgement, and not of inclination; and, what sort of reason is that, in which the determination precedes the discussion; in which one sett of men deliberate, and another decide; and where those who form the conclusion are perhaps three hundred miles distant from those who hear the arguments? To deliver an opinion, is the right of all men; that of Constituents is a weighty and respectable opinion, which a Representative ought always to rejoice to hear; and which he ought always most seriously to consider. But authoritative instructions; Mandates issued, which the Member is bound blindly and implicitly to obey, to vote, and to argue for, though contrary to the clearest conviction of his judgement and conscience; these are things utterly unknown to the laws of this land, and which arise from a fundamental Mistake of the whole order and tenour of our Constitution.

http://www.econlib.org/library/LFBooks/Burke/brkSWv4c1.html
That said, I vote for the candidate whose judgment I trust and whose way of coming to judgment is closest to mine.

This is a side issue. Public opinion doesn't exist in a vacuum. Its a complex relationship between the public, political leaders statements, the media pundits, and media coverage. When the house bill was passed the average republican voter didn't rise up in mass to fight against it. The republican leaders both in office and in the media convinced the voters to fight it, with mostly lies.

But whether its lies or the truth public opinion is molded. Good leaders have the capability to get their message out, explain why a piece of legislation is good and why the public should support it. Most people don't have the time or the prerequisite knowledge to grasp the complexities of most legislation.

Democrats too often seem to fail at communicating their message to the public mostly, imo, because too many of them have no god damn spine and are unwilling to fight. The first fight they should be having is how the media covers the lies and distortions from the right. Its hard to get your message out when the MSM treats lies like death panels with respect.

Me likes tricky questions !!!

So we have a Senator who's hedging for the definite maybe on the issue. It really boils down to a personal trust you have with him. If you voted for him, then you have a sincere trust in his judgment and high value and regard for how he uses the power you gave him.

On the otherhand, those of us on the out side have a relationship with the Senator. The relationship is a part of a greater whole. For that greater whole to succeed, the relationship is a dependence on the Senator to follow the leads of those members that also represent the greater whole. But the greater whole is not always in unison with each other - factions exist and sometimes break away.

So it really boils down to where in the greater whole the Senator resides. Nothing Senator Franken has said so far would indicate he favors or disfavors any option at the moment. He's a complete enigma on the health care issue. He's playing a very intense game of no-peek poker and seems to be intent on having a winning hand, but we don't know what cards he's holding and that exactly how he wants it.