Does our basic Congressional, two-party political system actually serve to stifle creative policy innovation? Are that body’s two chambers so committed to achieving consistent solidarity and respectful of seniority that stimulative thinking from relative newcomers is implicitly subordinated or stifled? Does the constant pressure for internal party conformity inhibit consideration of fresh approaches to the growing multitude of pressing issues to be addressed? Can “fresh blood” be a stimulative shot in the arm, or does it merely dilute the existing spiritual fluid a bit? With a looming election involving two elder statesmen, is it realistic to expect deviation from most recent establishment doctrine and promotion? Can some newcomer(s) with shorter but appealing pedigrees make a meaningful difference to the demographics of critical voter participation? Do the “D” or “R” labels retain their historical brand recognition, or can a few rookies in the campaign stage background make some thought-provoking difference in the outcome without appearing to be party dissidents? If we’re serious about the future direction and international influence of our 248-year-old Constitutional republic, this year’s contest must look beyond the current protagonists. There’s a need for strong future quarterbacks, and the next four-year administration should serve as advanced training camp for those with the conviction and courage to demonstrate their political aptitude in the respective supporting casts. Game on! Phil Osifer