Pete ticks off ALL the boxes for President. I am really over folks saying he is not a viable candidate because he is married to a man. Thanks, Jen, for this great piece!
"I am really over folks saying he is not a viable candidate because he is married to a man."
The question remains, are enough people (Democrats and Independents) over with Pete's marital and sexual positioning? Single issue voters may find this to be a stumbling block in accepting him as a candidate in spite of his excellence.
Sadly, I think there are lots of Independents and even Republicans who would vote only for a heterosexual man, preferably white. America has paid the price twice, in 2016 and 2024, for this blindness.
FALSE! Check again. Had all those, who did not vote or voted for a 3rd party candidate who could NOT win, voted instead for HRC & Harris, we would likely not be about to lose our democracy.
Single issue voters remain a significant problem because white US citizens are very self-absorbed. Whether they are racist, misogynistic, willing to ONLY vote for a progressive or Republican, willing to only vote for someone who approves of their individual policy desire, they have failed to understand that an election is FIRST about WHO WILL PROTECT our rights and democracy. Who is willing to protect ALL of the people in the US? In 2016 and 2024, by far, the citizens of the US ignored this. WHICH of the 2 candidates has the character and the intelligence to keep ALL of us safe? The answer was the woman in the race.
So you think Pete's choices are "positioning"? That's the kind of analysis paralysis which leads to nowhere. Look at Pete's life and actions--they speak for themselves, quite a contrast to who is currently in the Oval Office.
He is not viable because he ticks NO boxes job-wise. His entire resume consists of a stint as a mediocre of a very small city (pop. 100,000) where he had issues with his police force and Black community and was clearly over his head, and a term in a minor cabinet post. Mayoralties and cabinet posts do not produce serious presidential candidates — the only reason Hegseth and RKF Jr are being mentioned by outlets such as the Washington Post is because the GOP has nobody.
It is statistically very unlikely that only victim data have been accidentally released if there are zero examples of perpetrator information being released.
While in general I agree with the principle of "Never attribute to malice what can be adequately explained by incompetence" (and this regime is loaded with incompetence), we have to assume in this case that the victims' data was released on purpose, presumably to intimidate them. All the files need to be released immediately. No more excuses!
Full agreement!!! However, that will never happen with Todd Blanche in a blocking role. I have no doubt he would personally shred incriminating files if needed to protect tRump. The problem for him is that there are likely too many and too many copies outside his control.
I've always loved Buttigieg. So smart, so kind, such good values, such a master of the English language. The very antithesis of what squats in the White House now. I honestly think he could win. But maybe he'd be wiser to run for Senate first, then President in a few years when the country will (inevitably) have matured towards full acceptance of gay couples.
I'd vote for him in a second, but I do wonder if he's who we need. The most consequential President in my lifetime was LBJ. Love him or hate him he got things done and he wasn't always nice about it.
As for last night's Presidential rant on prime time, I see a major threat. Election interference is coming and it will be well planned. Here are the threats I can think of. I am certain there are a few more surprises the MAGA AI has suggested. Remember that Muck owns Grok and Theil owns Palantir. How do we counter them?
1. Purging the voter registration rolls just before the election – forcing Democrats to reregister too late to be able to vote.
2. ICE agents show up at polling locations and detain specific individuals who all happen to be Democrats.
3. National Guard shows up and seizes election equipment and records.
4. Creating delay in USPS processing of ballots so that they arrive too late to be counted.
5. Other dirty tricks?
The Democrats should ask the various AIs for a full SWOT analysis (Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities, and Threats) and then ask for a list of effective counter measures.
These three men are the examples of what Democrats use to be and need to be in the future. Willing to talk to voters no matter where they are and unafraid to be up front and honest. We don't have to accept the liar-in-chief's words on anything, nor do we need to accept anything coming from the mouths of the GOP cowards in the House and Senate or other elected office. As Pete B. said, we aren't looking for all the shards of what was destroyed to put it back together, we need to dream big, create something better and make it work.
Dani Bensky is no doubt the undaunted survivor of Epstein sexual abuse. I hope these testimonies will reach far and wide to deny Todd Blanche the AG job.
The MAGApublican senators have made so many confirmational mistakes in the past, it's hard to believe that they will not make another in confirming Blanche. If they do, they will have been instrumental in destroying the department of justice (no caps intentional) and its credibility.
Just a non-lawyer mouthing off about the law... tRump has wasted thousands of hours of Federal Judges time and that of their Law Clerks. I think as part of the fix, we need to review and revise the laws governing 'vexatious litigants'. If there ever was one, it is tRump. By the way, I'd vote for Pete in a heartbeat!
Pete B is a fantastic communicator and brilliant. I really like him. Unfortunately, however, the country is nowhere near ready to elect a gay president. It would be a grave error for the Democrats to nominate him.
Buttigieg has to wait out another cycle until the kids who come of age in the latter part of the next decade register and vote. They are fully aware of the notion that diversity makes us a better country.
I can't "like" your comment, but I certainly agree with it. I truly believe Buttigieg would make a great president able to restore public respect and confidence to the office, but I both fear and regret that he can't be elected.
I said it another comment, but people who wouldn't vote for a gay candidate wouldn't vote for a Democrat to begin with. Same with voting for a woman. I don't see this as a huge problem.
However, I guess there are some anti-gay independent voters out there and maybe with small numbers in swing states deciding Presidential elections that might be a factor. But I think it's a mistake to play to these voters.
I believe messages like that of Pete Buttigieg are what get people to vote. We, for our part, not only have to vote, but do what we can to fight the cancerous attempts of the Orange Fat Man in the former People’s House to undo the midterms.
On July 15, 2025: H.R. 4405, the Epstein Files Transparency Act was introduced in the House by Representative Ro Khanna.
According to reporting by Haberman and Swan, top officials held a secret, chaotic damage-control meeting in the White House Situation Room on July 17, 2025, to manage the political fallout from unreleased Jeffrey Epstein files as detailed in Regime Change. Read the full story at The New York Times. https://www.nytimes.com/2026/06/10/magazine/trump-epstein-files-white-house-vance-doj.html
"Vice President JD Vance took a seat at the head of the table in the John F. Kennedy Conference Room of the Situation Room complex. “This is a huge problem,” he told the group. Arrayed around him were the White House chief of staff, Susie Wiles; the White House counsel, David Warrington; the press secretary, Karoline Leavitt; the deputy chief of staff Taylor Budowich; the communications director, Steven Cheung; the deputy attorney general, Todd Blanche; the associate attorney general, Stanley Woodward Jr.; and the deputy chief of staff James Blair. Attorney General Pam Bondi and the F.B.I. director, Kash Patel, joined on speakerphone."
.... "Blanche laid out what he saw as their best options.
Option 1 was to petition Federal District Courts in Florida and New York to unseal the grand jury testimonies — the secret transcripts of prosecutors’ presentations of witnesses and evidence in their efforts to obtain indictments in past Epstein-related cases. As those were almost certain to contain no significant new information, everyone agreed that this option was a good idea, and not only because a release was unlikely to damage the president.
Under the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, the secrecy of grand jury materials is regarded by most federal judges as almost always inviolate, and the bar for any release is exceptionally high. If the courts refused to unseal them — as Blanche predicted — they could shift the blame for withholding the Epstein material away from the Trump administration and onto the judges. And all the better if the judges had been appointed by Democratic presidents. Blanche’s suggestion would make it appear that the White House wanted the materials released, when it was almost certain not to happen.
Option 2 was to have Justice Department lawyers question Maxwell and publicly release the transcript — a twist on the idea proposed earlier by Vance. Blanche offered to interview Maxwell himself.
“What if we got her to talk to Congress?” Vance suggested.
Blanche raised the possibility that Maxwell’s lawyer might expect something in return for her candor.
Warrington, the White House counsel, responded by laying out the available choices, without advocating any of them. Maxwell could be given a pardon, he said, or she could have her sentence reduced.
At that, several around the table spoke up to register their strong disapproval."
In his testimony, Blanche said that the FBI had control of the records and that they determined which to proffer and they blocked production at their discretion before he received them. about 2.5 million documents remain unreleased or heavily redacted. Blanche maintains that the withheld files are largely duplicates, unrelated to the investigation, or protected by legal privilege.
The Epstein Bill wasn't signed until November.
The elements of obstruction of justice, and conspiracy should be familiar to Blanche. Senators should have them entered into the record along with the news article.
Potentially, Blanche is at least a material witness regarding the allegations.
The senators could have asked him to testify about the role of the FBI in manipulating the records.
In the SDFL case, he failed to provide a log explaining the basis for each record withheld. The senators could force him to produce that log. Same in the Pfang case. Senators could ask to see the withheld 2.5 million records ASAP.
Pete would make a wonderful President. I understand your frustration. However, it has become obvious to me in the past few years how much misogyny, homophobia, and racism is alive and well in our country - more than I realized. I truly believe this was a big piece of why Kamala lost. No matter how much I love Pete, I am not sure we can risk losing in 2028 to a Republican party that would decrease the likelihood of a female or gay president for decades into the future. I hope I am wrong, but have lost faith in a large percentage of our citizens.
Unless the tired old guard of the party starts to step aside I fear we will have limited results. Too many of them are still tied to Israeli money and an unreasonably fear of offending a Zionist regime.
It's a good question and it's because of our form of government. Under a parliamentary system the leader can get thrown out with a no confidence vote and call for new elections. Here we have to wait four years. Couple that with Gerrymandering and winner take all that produced the two party system where minorities don't get a voice, we have a slog of a government that isn't responsive to public opinion.
Without a doubt he's highly qualified to be President, although in campaigning in the past he hasn't connected with African American voters as well as other candidates did.
That said, for better or worse (and I vote for the latter), I strongly suspect that the Democrats will nominate a white, straight, Protestant male, not too old and not too young, to be President. And you know what? Nobody's going to come out and say that-- they'll just do it! After all, fair minded people would find that act and statement offensive, which is why nobody's going to say it.
Pete ticks off ALL the boxes for President. I am really over folks saying he is not a viable candidate because he is married to a man. Thanks, Jen, for this great piece!
"I am really over folks saying he is not a viable candidate because he is married to a man."
The question remains, are enough people (Democrats and Independents) over with Pete's marital and sexual positioning? Single issue voters may find this to be a stumbling block in accepting him as a candidate in spite of his excellence.
I'd say anyone who makes this a stumbling block is not going to vote for a Democrat regardless.
Although, we did discover how many misogynists there are in Democratic and Democratic-leaning voters in 2016 and 2024!!!
Sadly, I think there are lots of Independents and even Republicans who would vote only for a heterosexual man, preferably white. America has paid the price twice, in 2016 and 2024, for this blindness.
FALSE! Check again. Had all those, who did not vote or voted for a 3rd party candidate who could NOT win, voted instead for HRC & Harris, we would likely not be about to lose our democracy.
Single issue voters remain a significant problem because white US citizens are very self-absorbed. Whether they are racist, misogynistic, willing to ONLY vote for a progressive or Republican, willing to only vote for someone who approves of their individual policy desire, they have failed to understand that an election is FIRST about WHO WILL PROTECT our rights and democracy. Who is willing to protect ALL of the people in the US? In 2016 and 2024, by far, the citizens of the US ignored this. WHICH of the 2 candidates has the character and the intelligence to keep ALL of us safe? The answer was the woman in the race.
So you think Pete's choices are "positioning"? That's the kind of analysis paralysis which leads to nowhere. Look at Pete's life and actions--they speak for themselves, quite a contrast to who is currently in the Oval Office.
We should NEVER judge our potential candidates by the criterion of "better than Trump." The contents of my cats' litter boxes is "better than Trump."
He is not viable because he ticks NO boxes job-wise. His entire resume consists of a stint as a mediocre of a very small city (pop. 100,000) where he had issues with his police force and Black community and was clearly over his head, and a term in a minor cabinet post. Mayoralties and cabinet posts do not produce serious presidential candidates — the only reason Hegseth and RKF Jr are being mentioned by outlets such as the Washington Post is because the GOP has nobody.
It is statistically very unlikely that only victim data have been accidentally released if there are zero examples of perpetrator information being released.
While in general I agree with the principle of "Never attribute to malice what can be adequately explained by incompetence" (and this regime is loaded with incompetence), we have to assume in this case that the victims' data was released on purpose, presumably to intimidate them. All the files need to be released immediately. No more excuses!
Full agreement!!! However, that will never happen with Todd Blanche in a blocking role. I have no doubt he would personally shred incriminating files if needed to protect tRump. The problem for him is that there are likely too many and too many copies outside his control.
The file shredding ship has likely already sailed. Both Blanche and Bondi before him have had more than adequate time to "adjust" the contents.
I will bet there are many copies of those files ?!
I've always loved Buttigieg. So smart, so kind, such good values, such a master of the English language. The very antithesis of what squats in the White House now. I honestly think he could win. But maybe he'd be wiser to run for Senate first, then President in a few years when the country will (inevitably) have matured towards full acceptance of gay couples.
I'd vote for him in a second, but I do wonder if he's who we need. The most consequential President in my lifetime was LBJ. Love him or hate him he got things done and he wasn't always nice about it.
As for last night's Presidential rant on prime time, I see a major threat. Election interference is coming and it will be well planned. Here are the threats I can think of. I am certain there are a few more surprises the MAGA AI has suggested. Remember that Muck owns Grok and Theil owns Palantir. How do we counter them?
1. Purging the voter registration rolls just before the election – forcing Democrats to reregister too late to be able to vote.
2. ICE agents show up at polling locations and detain specific individuals who all happen to be Democrats.
3. National Guard shows up and seizes election equipment and records.
4. Creating delay in USPS processing of ballots so that they arrive too late to be counted.
5. Other dirty tricks?
The Democrats should ask the various AIs for a full SWOT analysis (Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities, and Threats) and then ask for a list of effective counter measures.
All true. VOTE EARLY IN PERSON IF ABLE
Nothing is "well planned" if last night's flailing speech is any indication.
These three men are the examples of what Democrats use to be and need to be in the future. Willing to talk to voters no matter where they are and unafraid to be up front and honest. We don't have to accept the liar-in-chief's words on anything, nor do we need to accept anything coming from the mouths of the GOP cowards in the House and Senate or other elected office. As Pete B. said, we aren't looking for all the shards of what was destroyed to put it back together, we need to dream big, create something better and make it work.
Dani Bensky is no doubt the undaunted survivor of Epstein sexual abuse. I hope these testimonies will reach far and wide to deny Todd Blanche the AG job.
The MAGApublican senators have made so many confirmational mistakes in the past, it's hard to believe that they will not make another in confirming Blanche. If they do, they will have been instrumental in destroying the department of justice (no caps intentional) and its credibility.
Just a non-lawyer mouthing off about the law... tRump has wasted thousands of hours of Federal Judges time and that of their Law Clerks. I think as part of the fix, we need to review and revise the laws governing 'vexatious litigants'. If there ever was one, it is tRump. By the way, I'd vote for Pete in a heartbeat!
Pete B is a fantastic communicator and brilliant. I really like him. Unfortunately, however, the country is nowhere near ready to elect a gay president. It would be a grave error for the Democrats to nominate him.
Buttigieg has to wait out another cycle until the kids who come of age in the latter part of the next decade register and vote. They are fully aware of the notion that diversity makes us a better country.
I can't "like" your comment, but I certainly agree with it. I truly believe Buttigieg would make a great president able to restore public respect and confidence to the office, but I both fear and regret that he can't be elected.
Not yet
I think he's terrific, and smart!
I said it another comment, but people who wouldn't vote for a gay candidate wouldn't vote for a Democrat to begin with. Same with voting for a woman. I don't see this as a huge problem.
However, I guess there are some anti-gay independent voters out there and maybe with small numbers in swing states deciding Presidential elections that might be a factor. But I think it's a mistake to play to these voters.
I believe messages like that of Pete Buttigieg are what get people to vote. We, for our part, not only have to vote, but do what we can to fight the cancerous attempts of the Orange Fat Man in the former People’s House to undo the midterms.
On July 15, 2025: H.R. 4405, the Epstein Files Transparency Act was introduced in the House by Representative Ro Khanna.
According to reporting by Haberman and Swan, top officials held a secret, chaotic damage-control meeting in the White House Situation Room on July 17, 2025, to manage the political fallout from unreleased Jeffrey Epstein files as detailed in Regime Change. Read the full story at The New York Times. https://www.nytimes.com/2026/06/10/magazine/trump-epstein-files-white-house-vance-doj.html
"Vice President JD Vance took a seat at the head of the table in the John F. Kennedy Conference Room of the Situation Room complex. “This is a huge problem,” he told the group. Arrayed around him were the White House chief of staff, Susie Wiles; the White House counsel, David Warrington; the press secretary, Karoline Leavitt; the deputy chief of staff Taylor Budowich; the communications director, Steven Cheung; the deputy attorney general, Todd Blanche; the associate attorney general, Stanley Woodward Jr.; and the deputy chief of staff James Blair. Attorney General Pam Bondi and the F.B.I. director, Kash Patel, joined on speakerphone."
.... "Blanche laid out what he saw as their best options.
Option 1 was to petition Federal District Courts in Florida and New York to unseal the grand jury testimonies — the secret transcripts of prosecutors’ presentations of witnesses and evidence in their efforts to obtain indictments in past Epstein-related cases. As those were almost certain to contain no significant new information, everyone agreed that this option was a good idea, and not only because a release was unlikely to damage the president.
Under the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, the secrecy of grand jury materials is regarded by most federal judges as almost always inviolate, and the bar for any release is exceptionally high. If the courts refused to unseal them — as Blanche predicted — they could shift the blame for withholding the Epstein material away from the Trump administration and onto the judges. And all the better if the judges had been appointed by Democratic presidents. Blanche’s suggestion would make it appear that the White House wanted the materials released, when it was almost certain not to happen.
Option 2 was to have Justice Department lawyers question Maxwell and publicly release the transcript — a twist on the idea proposed earlier by Vance. Blanche offered to interview Maxwell himself.
“What if we got her to talk to Congress?” Vance suggested.
Blanche raised the possibility that Maxwell’s lawyer might expect something in return for her candor.
Warrington, the White House counsel, responded by laying out the available choices, without advocating any of them. Maxwell could be given a pardon, he said, or she could have her sentence reduced.
At that, several around the table spoke up to register their strong disapproval."
In his testimony, Blanche said that the FBI had control of the records and that they determined which to proffer and they blocked production at their discretion before he received them. about 2.5 million documents remain unreleased or heavily redacted. Blanche maintains that the withheld files are largely duplicates, unrelated to the investigation, or protected by legal privilege.
The Epstein Bill wasn't signed until November.
The elements of obstruction of justice, and conspiracy should be familiar to Blanche. Senators should have them entered into the record along with the news article.
Potentially, Blanche is at least a material witness regarding the allegations.
The senators could have asked him to testify about the role of the FBI in manipulating the records.
In the SDFL case, he failed to provide a log explaining the basis for each record withheld. The senators could force him to produce that log. Same in the Pfang case. Senators could ask to see the withheld 2.5 million records ASAP.
Pete would make a wonderful President. I understand your frustration. However, it has become obvious to me in the past few years how much misogyny, homophobia, and racism is alive and well in our country - more than I realized. I truly believe this was a big piece of why Kamala lost. No matter how much I love Pete, I am not sure we can risk losing in 2028 to a Republican party that would decrease the likelihood of a female or gay president for decades into the future. I hope I am wrong, but have lost faith in a large percentage of our citizens.
you are not wrong
Unless the tired old guard of the party starts to step aside I fear we will have limited results. Too many of them are still tied to Israeli money and an unreasonably fear of offending a Zionist regime.
"..called him out for refusing to meet with victims despite spending 9 hours to meet with Ghislaine Maxwell..."
Blanche is absolute Scum.......as is everyone in Trump's Cabinet.......and, everyone associated with Trump.
Why are we stuck with this incompetent Administration, when other Countries, like Britain, and Japan, get rid of the Gov't heads that they don't want?
It's a good question and it's because of our form of government. Under a parliamentary system the leader can get thrown out with a no confidence vote and call for new elections. Here we have to wait four years. Couple that with Gerrymandering and winner take all that produced the two party system where minorities don't get a voice, we have a slog of a government that isn't responsive to public opinion.
Excellent article today on all fronts!
I would vote for Pete in a New York minute.
Without a doubt he's highly qualified to be President, although in campaigning in the past he hasn't connected with African American voters as well as other candidates did.
That said, for better or worse (and I vote for the latter), I strongly suspect that the Democrats will nominate a white, straight, Protestant male, not too old and not too young, to be President. And you know what? Nobody's going to come out and say that-- they'll just do it! After all, fair minded people would find that act and statement offensive, which is why nobody's going to say it.