To relate this topic to something that I am more familar with and which relates directly to my field of education; I would say that your comments; specifically, "Both he and Clinton are rich people, pre-selected by rich people, funded by rich people, who, when in office, will cater to the needs of rich people and global neo-liberalism" remind me very much so of the makeup of the educational body that we  (teachers)  work for.  

Not necissarily with relation to being rich but rather a commonality that brings a group together weather it be culture, class, community etc...  As I aspire to educate myself to one day be a pedgogical leader or regional director or even director general, I think of the social underpinnings that are required to get me there and how wrong they are.  I look at the people that form the school boards in my area and you do not need to look to far to notice a strong correlation in patterns.  At the administrative level, sadly, jobs are posted at times and the people in power already know who will be hired. 

What I am trying to say is that your comments make me identify a connection between the mainstream american politics and the educational system of the area in which I live.  People tend push for their own, whatever they see that connection being, and when this dynamic repeats itself over and over we see a very narrow scope of individuals who are given power, trust and authority over a very diverse group of students and their education.

I hope that I will see the day when there is a diverse and representative stake in the educaiton of children.  

I share similar sentiments of the existing structures that surround the teaching profession.  I share the same hope for meaningful diversity and greater representativeness in educational administration.  But I hold this hope while keeping in mind the complexities of ideas that might support practical constitutive efforts on the part of teachers, administrators, and leadership of all sorts.

If we aim to be pedagogical leaders then we must acknowledge our own personal and socially contextualized shortcomings.  Where I may come from an especially advantaged group, whether economically based or otherwise, I feel that such acknowledgement of my own hierarchical standing in a dominant role opens up the possibilities for reform.  For example, if I think to myself as a future leader I think immediately to changing the system through lived example.  Through multiple agendas advantaging those who I continue to oppress.  Of course, it may be easiest to envision such practices while resting a good distance away from the complex responsibilities of social and organizational leadership.  Yet in defining these responsibilities, and thus the role of leaders, our task should be to begin considering the possibilities of meaningful reform to hiring and appointment practices for the direct benefit of students and the next generation of leadership.  The concept of the leader, after all, denotes a degree of innovation and courage.  For in the total absence of such traits one cannot assume the title of any leader but rather concedes oneself to becoming a disciple of oppression and entitlement.

After reflecting on this brief writing I feel like I've been a bit harsh, any thoughts are very welcome here.  Thanks all!

Victor.