"So why farm the process of putting the legislation together out to the 535 people least likely to come up with a coherent, efficient stimulus package?" You ask it in the context of Obama having already recruited so many top economists. I would say the question is even more puzzling when you throw in Obama's ability to communicate and convince along with the dramatic difference in his approval rating relative to Congress'. Two possible explanations that get little discussion:

1) THE OBAMA ADMINISTRATION STALLED RIGHT OUT OF THE GATE. In the first weeks of his presidency Obama signed a spending bill that was filled with pork. He knew this and seemed to be dissatisfied with the bill but signed it anyway because he didn't want a debate over a relatively small spending bill prevent him from making progress on a broad agenda. I remember him making comments like, 'I'll let this one pass but will make sure that earmarks will not be included future budgets and spending bills.' Boy was he wrong. The simple act of signing that bill emboldened Congress and sent the message that they could continue to dictate legislation even to a hugely popular president. Obama could and should have taken a stand right out of the gate. He could have vetoed the bill, leaned back in his chair and watched as an already unpopular Congress was left to defend its pork-laden bill to the American people. This action would have been consistent with his message of change and would have dictated a new course for Washington politics. Instead, he sent a message to Congress that they could expect business as usual. For some reason the media and the country let him off the hook at the time but Congress didn't miss the signal and Obama will be dealing with an emboldened Congress for the remainder of his presidency.

2) THE COUNTRY IS STILL PAYING THE PRICE FOR THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY'S PRIMARY SYSTEM. I wrote countless comments on Salon about this during the 2008 primary season. While most of the discussion about the primary system was about how it might hurt/help the party, I was, and remain, concerned that it hurt the country. The power wielded by the superdelegates ensured that whoever the Democratic nominee was, the nominee would owe more favors to PLEOs than any in history. Obama can't stand up to Congress because so many Congressional Democrats agreed to make him the nominee in exchange for countless promises and favors. I believe it would have been better for Obama if Congress was controlled by the Republicans. This way he would be negotiating with people to whom he owed nothing.

How big a role is either of the above playing? I don't know but I wish they got a little more coverage. This dynamic will be playing out in every interaction between the branches of government. Today we have a hugely popular and convincing president going around the country telling voters to essentially support whatever health bill Congress comes up with. It wouldn't be a compelling argument if Congress had a good reputation and track record. Given what we all know Congress is capable of, Obama's arguments feel hollow and disingenuous.

Generally speaking, the Democrats in Congress are not interested in steering a path for real health care reform. Want proof? Why did they schedule all of these town halls on the issue? Is it some belief in the value of public debate? Not a chance. Can anyone remember members of congress so frequently and publicly canvassing constituents on an issue, exposing themselves to criticism and ridicule? Where were the town halls on FISA? On the stimulus? The only explanation is that they too wanted to slow whatever momentum there was this issue.

While there's plenty of difference between Democrats and Republicans on this issue, health care reform is not going to be derailed because of partisan fighting. This is another chance for Congress (and lobbyists) to remind Obama where Washington power is truly centralized and its not The White House. Things could have been different but Obama has been caving to Congress from day one (spending bills, stimulus, earmarks, health care) and Congress doesn't back off when it smells blood in the water. Someone smarter than me would need to explain why Obama would squander his superior charisma and popularity in outsourcing the health care details to such a poorly regarded institution as Congress. The reason Obama hasn't been convincing on health care is because he's traveling the country asking us to basically 'support whatever Congress comes up with.' It's time for him to take leadership on this issue, develop a detailed proposal and ask Congress to debate and vote on it.

I'd go with yes for 1 and no for 2 just like Judy Berman but throwing 3 out there would mean questioning whether there is even a place for women's sports. If you are going to define a class of valid entrants to your athletic event you need to have a definition that is supportable by some sort of test. And I'm not sure that test can be a questionnaire that asks simply 'Do you identify yourself as a female?' We could all foresee endless controversy and distraction if the barrier to entry were set in such a way. Perfect or not, a somewhat strict biological definition of gender would seem necessary as long as we think we want to have gender-specific athletic competition.