Reply #104: I think many "establishment" figures in congress now are controversial figures to the people now!

[cascadiance]

They shouldn't forget that the congress has had a lower favorability rating than even Bush had. So, I think it's just as fair to say that congress needs to adapt to do things the way others have done outside of Washington as much as it is fair to say that cabinet figures should know how to work things through Washington.

Part of the problem we have is that because we've had basically corporatists in both parties having the lion's share of "experience" in Congress in Washington, this argument is an easy way to try and exclude NEW voices coming in to an administration to help CHANGE things and how things are done. Obama has promised change for us, and in so doing, we shouldn't be pushing people away ONLY because they aren't experienced senators or congress people. That's what will lock us into failed status quo methodologies. It's an excuse to keep the old boy's club in power, and not a recipe for making real and big changes that are needed. Now, i think it's fine to have a few voices on the cabinet to keep people in check on what's worked in the past and what hasn't, so that the new people on board don't make the same mistakes. But you don't need to have EVERYONE have those qualifications.

Obama does owe US an explanation on how he's going to tackle problems like health care, as we are his bosses... And as a part of that, he should be able to explain to us how he's going to solve those problems with the people and resources he's lining up to fix those problems. If many feel that Howard Dean would be the best qualified, as many do, then we should be looking at him. We've already had senators like Harkin recommend him as well. He's not someone that's totally rejected by the Senate.