I would say that given the hegemony that money has over the U.S. political process – the sheer amounts of it required to even get on the map for media exposure of your candidacy – we choose wealthy from limited options / mostly wealthy ones.

Yet both Bill Clinton and Barack Obama climbed the entire political ladder from modest beginnings. To me that is a very, very important example to keep younger prospects of all social strata, in the game of public service. That said, both those presidents had to attract major wealth interests to back them. And most Progressives could easily point to compromises they made therefrom…

But I would agree that if you want a leader “of the people”, that would be the janitor before it could ever be Ross Perot.

I marvel at the present argument in favor of Wall Street banker mega-salaries: “why, we’ve got to pay that to get the best talent!”

Hell, a guy at the bus stop would have run those firms better the last few years… ;^)