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.
Actually, when eligible but non-voting voters responded to a post-election survey, the numbers stayed pretty much the same — in fact, they would have voted 44% for Trump and 40% for Harris. A big chunk of the country refused to vote for a Black woman, regardless of her obvious fitness for the job and her opponent's proven unfitness.
There has to be both misogyny and racism at the root, along with the absence of civic education in the wake of No Child Left Behind.
Civic education is NOT the problem. I learned to pay attention to politics and voting by watching my parents and following their lead. I learned how to treat others in the same way. Voting matters, treating others equally matters, and everyone deserves the same opportunities. What I learned from "civics" was there are a lot of rules and that men controlled them all. I also learned a lot from having watched the news coverage of the Civil Rights marches, the way POC were being treated, and AGAIN my parents were clear about what was right and wrong.
Perhaps you misunderstand me. I'm talking about some very, very basic things that "conservatives" have driven out of public education. When you have a US Senator who cannot name the three branches of government, when people don't know or understand the US Constitution and its Amendments, and when even a rudimentary grasp of how laws are made and executed is beyond most voters, there is a serious problem of education.
I totally agree that "You Have to be Carefully Taught," as the song goes. The bigots and misogynists and white supremacists were carefully taught in segregation academies and Sunday schools and then had that teaching reinforced every time they saw a Confederate flag or battle monument, or listened to the latest "populist" reactionary running for office.
The best thing about the US Constitution as it has evolved is that women have equal legal power to make and enforce the rules. It's up to all of us to get rich white men to submit to the rule of law by all lawful means. If we don't know what those means are, we can't do much.
Just because the result of a post election survey showed the same results is no surprise. The better question to ask was why did they NOT vote for Harris in 2024 or for HRC in 2016. IF they were honest in their responses they would admit to racism, misogyny, self-absorption and ignorance of the responsibilities that come with voting.
That is why we as a country are still behind the 8 ball. His sexual orientation is nobody's business and it sure as hell should not disqualify a talented guy for office. People need to get over this crasp.
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.
Absolutely. The single-issue voters have no understanding, willfully or no, that politics is the art of compromise and that savvy negotiations get us more of what we want than rigidity, to which only the dead are entitled.
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.
Yes. To the extent that the president's personal life is relevant, Pete and Chasten check all the boxes: committed, loving, doting parents. It's the Obamas and Bushes again.
Dear God, we do not need the Bushes again. They were good on the outside and knew how to act in public, but Cheney controlled GW and his admin did a lot of damage to this country. They, in NO way understood the needs of the majority. Bush senior had no idea what the cost of a loaf of bread was.
I agree. I wasn't praising the Bushes. My point was that if you thought the Obamas and Bushes were respectable families, putting aside politics, then you are forced to distinguish how Pete and Chasten are different. People don't want to be seen as homophobic or hypocritical.
I like the way that you said 'distinguish how Pete & Chasten are different'. The truth is they are not different from other young families - which I wish more people would see.
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.
Must take issue with the 'ticks no boxes' observation. Pete speaks the truth, speaks well, can obviously think and recognize the problems that the nation and individuals are facing. He looks to inclusion rather than hatefilled exclusion, all of which make him far better than anyone in the current administration.
What do you think the most important qualities of a president are? Obama's experiences were limited. What mattered was intelligence and ability to speak to the needs of everyday people. Those are Buttigieg's skills. He was on Fox News repeatedly - able to maintain his positions with zero difficulty in the face of absurdity. Have you witnessed his ability to sit in the middle of a circle with people of every walk of life and every type of political belief and respond to their questions with clarity? A person can be a leader without extended experience. The best leaders are good at listening and reflecting back to others that they understand the concerns they talk about and how they might be addressed. They deflect negativity - not by telling someone they are wrong, but by pointing out the facts or by explaining what the real issues are. For some people these are natural abilities. And for some people - no amount of experience is EVER going to enable them to lead.
Your comments on Pete made me curious. So I went through all the comments to count yours. You commented a total of nine times. Seven of those were directly or indirectly related to Pete and every one of them was negative. Me thinks you have a huge problem with the fact he is gay.
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 Epstein estate is a notable repository that is immune from the shredding operation. It doesn't have everything, but destroying evidence is a crime in all jurisdictions, not just federal.
Since when do Trump and Trump's minions care a whit about destroying evidence? As we don't know what all was there, we also won't know what all is missing. When corrupt people in high places get their hands on evidence, manipulation flourishes.
Even if there are limited copies, there were many sets of eyes on them over the years. Problem is, no one seems to have the spine to come forward and share what they have seen.
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.
Why do you think Buttigieg could not be "tough"? Obama had no choice but to use his intelligence and leadership skills to be a successful president. Had he done what LBJ did, Obama would have been accused of being a "thug". The media blasted Michelle Obama for being an "angry Black woman" after one of her speeches. They CHOSE to interpret something she said as anger.
Good leaders do not use anger as a tool to control.
Pete was entrusted by Biden to get the Bipartisan Infrastructure law passed through Congress. He shaped it incorporating programs from his 2019-20 Presidential Campaign platform. He had hundreds of meetings/calls with Senators and Reps and did hundreds of media appearances to get the bill passed in 9 months. He got four departmental budgets passed and the FAA Reauthorization. He's had plenty of exposure to the legislative process. And made fools of GQP reps and Senators in hearings. He's plenty tough too.
Agree: Pete Buttigieg will be every bit as effective as LBJ in that he will be able to use his brilliance to do battle with the puny and moronic republicans/MAGAts. trump loyalists will still be trying to analyze what Buttigieg says or does long before realizing they're well and truly beaten. Intelligence and a belief in ethics are superior weapons, and much needed to begin to regain and repair our Democracy.
I don't know one way or another. He's only been mayor of South Bend and Sec. of Transportation. Don't know if he's had the opportunity to be tough and persuasive. There will likely never be another LBJ who knew Congress inside out, how to twist arms and whose arm to twist. Democrats want to build consensus and work to get things done even if it means compromise. I see Pete and Obama in that mold. But to fix our ruined government it's going take some railroading and not nice.
We need to be asking that because so much of this "Pete! Pete!" stuff is infatuation. He's very appealing and I think some of us are in love with the idea that we could support a second gay president (first in nearly two centuries!) But he isn't ready by far. Ditto AOC, another name I see tossed around, except I think she's smarter than we are and realizes this, whereas I think Pete is ambitious and getting ahead of himself. With so many accomplished governors, we have a dozen better prospects.
At 72 years of age, I am long past infatuation. I have listened to Buttigieg and I agree with the things he says. He served as a Navy intelligence officer for 8 years. He was a Rhodes Scholar at Oxford where he studied philosophy, politics and economics. He can easily understand complex issues and then break them down for the average voter such that they better understand it but do not feel condescended to. He has appeared on Fox, kept his cool while answering truthfully and has been on dozens of times. How many Democrats can say that?
I don't vote based on someones sexual preference or gender, I vote on their values, intelligence, morals, honesty and competence and Pete has all of those in spades. That said, I don't think he can win the presidency in the current zeitgeist, nor can a woman. But, I would love to see Pete as the spokesperson for the Democratic party!
Who do you think would be among the dozen? I'd say Pritzker, Shapiro, (I'd say Harris or H. Clinton, but that's behind us.), who else.... Some I'm not thinking of at the moment, I'm sure.
He would not only be wiser, but he would t own actually possibly be qualified. As he is not now. Imagine taking someone with his limited experience — not matter how smart he is — and asking him to repair the massive destruction Trump has done. We need an experienced governor or senator, and frankly, this is where the vast majority of presidential candidates come from. And no "but Trump" isn't an argument. How is that working out?
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.
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.
They were NOT mistakes!!! EVERY ACTION by the GOP MOC and party leaders since Reagan has been purposeful. They have been aided by the richest white racist men in the US and by the news media/journalists after Reagan ended the Fairness Doc. Don't think that ABC & NBC have finally found the courage to support our democracy because they did not put T's lies on last night.
They WERE mistakes as far as the good of the majority of the American people are concerned. Confirmands like Thomas, Gorsuch, Roberts, and the members of the Trump administration(past and present) have not served us well. They have not supported the Constitution and have put power and profit over the role of the public servant.
Oh, and the ABC stations owned by Sinclair Broadcasting did air Trump's diatribe. Channel 7 in D.C. was but one example.
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.
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.
SO please tell me WHEN voters will stop being self-absorbed, racist, misogynistic, anti-LGBTQ+ and IGNORANT of the responsibilities that go with our rights? Those are the ONLY reasons why we have T!
As a citizen, we have the responsibility to learn the facts about candidates. (This has been made much harder since 95% of journalists use opinions and beliefs instead of facts & evidence since Reagan ended the Fairness Doc.)
We have the responsibility to ask ourselves:
1) Which of these 2 candidates has both character & intelligence? If ONLY 1 does, decision making is done! In 2016 & 2024, HRC & Harris should have won in landslides based on this question alone.
(Having character includes the belief that all people are equal.)
If both have character & intelligence then go to the next question.
2) Which of these 2 candidates has the best policies that will help the most people AND keep our democracy safe?
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.
You are mistaken if you think all dems would vote for a gay man as president. They couldn't vote for a white woman or a woman of mixed race because they were not perfect. So they did not vote or voted 3rd party - ignoring the FACT that they helped T to win.
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!
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.
Messages don't matter; demographics does. The mainstream media controls messages and creates them. What was the "message" of the 2016 campaign? Yeah, right. It was manufactured.
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.
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.
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.
THE PROBLEM is NOT the old guard. The problem is self absorbed, racist, and misogynistic voters who are ignorant of the responsibilities that go with our right to vote.
They like to blame the old guard for the Dem candidates who win the Dem primaries. They ignore the FACT that statistics alone tells you that the winner will be in the center of the party. Progressives/dem socialists are less than 1/3rd of those who vote in primaries across the nation. 2/3rds of the voters (who often include independents et al) will vote for a centrist of the party. Bernie was never going to win in 2016. Warren had a better chance because of what she had done in Congress and because of her intelligence and ability to speak so that people could understand.
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.
Perhaps we need an Amendment that authorizes “Recall”, as some States do. What do you think? Any other suggestion? Because…..we’ve dug ourselves into a hole, and don’t have a tool to get ourselves out……except for the interminable wait for an election(and, even THAT is being tampered with by the wanna-be Dictator)
The reason rising political stars like Talarico, Ossoff, and Buttigieg are so successful is because they ignore the right-wing name calling and distractions and turn the fight back on them. It's a lesson too few Democrats have learned, but it's why people like those three are the future of the party.
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.
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.
Although, we did discover how many misogynists there are in Democratic and Democratic-leaning voters in 2016 and 2024!!!
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.
Actually, when eligible but non-voting voters responded to a post-election survey, the numbers stayed pretty much the same — in fact, they would have voted 44% for Trump and 40% for Harris. A big chunk of the country refused to vote for a Black woman, regardless of her obvious fitness for the job and her opponent's proven unfitness.
There has to be both misogyny and racism at the root, along with the absence of civic education in the wake of No Child Left Behind.
https://www.pewresearch.org/?attachment_id=263073
Civic education is NOT the problem. I learned to pay attention to politics and voting by watching my parents and following their lead. I learned how to treat others in the same way. Voting matters, treating others equally matters, and everyone deserves the same opportunities. What I learned from "civics" was there are a lot of rules and that men controlled them all. I also learned a lot from having watched the news coverage of the Civil Rights marches, the way POC were being treated, and AGAIN my parents were clear about what was right and wrong.
Perhaps you misunderstand me. I'm talking about some very, very basic things that "conservatives" have driven out of public education. When you have a US Senator who cannot name the three branches of government, when people don't know or understand the US Constitution and its Amendments, and when even a rudimentary grasp of how laws are made and executed is beyond most voters, there is a serious problem of education.
I totally agree that "You Have to be Carefully Taught," as the song goes. The bigots and misogynists and white supremacists were carefully taught in segregation academies and Sunday schools and then had that teaching reinforced every time they saw a Confederate flag or battle monument, or listened to the latest "populist" reactionary running for office.
The best thing about the US Constitution as it has evolved is that women have equal legal power to make and enforce the rules. It's up to all of us to get rich white men to submit to the rule of law by all lawful means. If we don't know what those means are, we can't do much.
Just because the result of a post election survey showed the same results is no surprise. The better question to ask was why did they NOT vote for Harris in 2024 or for HRC in 2016. IF they were honest in their responses they would admit to racism, misogyny, self-absorption and ignorance of the responsibilities that come with voting.
I'd like to say that too, though there is evidence (by observation) that even some traditional Democrats and Independents who aren't as open-minded.
That is why we as a country are still behind the 8 ball. His sexual orientation is nobody's business and it sure as hell should not disqualify a talented guy for office. People need to get over this crasp.
Hear hear. You could also say the same about racism and bigotry.
AND misogyny
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.
Absolutely. The single-issue voters have no understanding, willfully or no, that politics is the art of compromise and that savvy negotiations get us more of what we want than rigidity, to which only the dead are entitled.
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."
Yes. To the extent that the president's personal life is relevant, Pete and Chasten check all the boxes: committed, loving, doting parents. It's the Obamas and Bushes again.
Dear God, we do not need the Bushes again. They were good on the outside and knew how to act in public, but Cheney controlled GW and his admin did a lot of damage to this country. They, in NO way understood the needs of the majority. Bush senior had no idea what the cost of a loaf of bread was.
I agree. I wasn't praising the Bushes. My point was that if you thought the Obamas and Bushes were respectable families, putting aside politics, then you are forced to distinguish how Pete and Chasten are different. People don't want to be seen as homophobic or hypocritical.
I like the way that you said 'distinguish how Pete & Chasten are different'. The truth is they are not different from other young families - which I wish more people would see.
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.
Must take issue with the 'ticks no boxes' observation. Pete speaks the truth, speaks well, can obviously think and recognize the problems that the nation and individuals are facing. He looks to inclusion rather than hatefilled exclusion, all of which make him far better than anyone in the current administration.
What do you think the most important qualities of a president are? Obama's experiences were limited. What mattered was intelligence and ability to speak to the needs of everyday people. Those are Buttigieg's skills. He was on Fox News repeatedly - able to maintain his positions with zero difficulty in the face of absurdity. Have you witnessed his ability to sit in the middle of a circle with people of every walk of life and every type of political belief and respond to their questions with clarity? A person can be a leader without extended experience. The best leaders are good at listening and reflecting back to others that they understand the concerns they talk about and how they might be addressed. They deflect negativity - not by telling someone they are wrong, but by pointing out the facts or by explaining what the real issues are. For some people these are natural abilities. And for some people - no amount of experience is EVER going to enable them to lead.
Your comments on Pete made me curious. So I went through all the comments to count yours. You commented a total of nine times. Seven of those were directly or indirectly related to Pete and every one of them was negative. Me thinks you have a huge problem with the fact he is gay.
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 ?!
The Epstein estate is a notable repository that is immune from the shredding operation. It doesn't have everything, but destroying evidence is a crime in all jurisdictions, not just federal.
Since when do Trump and Trump's minions care a whit about destroying evidence? As we don't know what all was there, we also won't know what all is missing. When corrupt people in high places get their hands on evidence, manipulation flourishes.
Even if there are limited copies, there were many sets of eyes on them over the years. Problem is, no one seems to have the spine to come forward and share what they have seen.
yeah, cuz epstein was murdered.
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.
Why do you think Buttigieg could not be "tough"? Obama had no choice but to use his intelligence and leadership skills to be a successful president. Had he done what LBJ did, Obama would have been accused of being a "thug". The media blasted Michelle Obama for being an "angry Black woman" after one of her speeches. They CHOSE to interpret something she said as anger.
Good leaders do not use anger as a tool to control.
Pete was entrusted by Biden to get the Bipartisan Infrastructure law passed through Congress. He shaped it incorporating programs from his 2019-20 Presidential Campaign platform. He had hundreds of meetings/calls with Senators and Reps and did hundreds of media appearances to get the bill passed in 9 months. He got four departmental budgets passed and the FAA Reauthorization. He's had plenty of exposure to the legislative process. And made fools of GQP reps and Senators in hearings. He's plenty tough too.
nice summary!
Agree: Pete Buttigieg will be every bit as effective as LBJ in that he will be able to use his brilliance to do battle with the puny and moronic republicans/MAGAts. trump loyalists will still be trying to analyze what Buttigieg says or does long before realizing they're well and truly beaten. Intelligence and a belief in ethics are superior weapons, and much needed to begin to regain and repair our Democracy.
I don't know one way or another. He's only been mayor of South Bend and Sec. of Transportation. Don't know if he's had the opportunity to be tough and persuasive. There will likely never be another LBJ who knew Congress inside out, how to twist arms and whose arm to twist. Democrats want to build consensus and work to get things done even if it means compromise. I see Pete and Obama in that mold. But to fix our ruined government it's going take some railroading and not nice.
We need to be asking that because so much of this "Pete! Pete!" stuff is infatuation. He's very appealing and I think some of us are in love with the idea that we could support a second gay president (first in nearly two centuries!) But he isn't ready by far. Ditto AOC, another name I see tossed around, except I think she's smarter than we are and realizes this, whereas I think Pete is ambitious and getting ahead of himself. With so many accomplished governors, we have a dozen better prospects.
At 72 years of age, I am long past infatuation. I have listened to Buttigieg and I agree with the things he says. He served as a Navy intelligence officer for 8 years. He was a Rhodes Scholar at Oxford where he studied philosophy, politics and economics. He can easily understand complex issues and then break them down for the average voter such that they better understand it but do not feel condescended to. He has appeared on Fox, kept his cool while answering truthfully and has been on dozens of times. How many Democrats can say that?
I don't vote based on someones sexual preference or gender, I vote on their values, intelligence, morals, honesty and competence and Pete has all of those in spades. That said, I don't think he can win the presidency in the current zeitgeist, nor can a woman. But, I would love to see Pete as the spokesperson for the Democratic party!
Who do you think would be among the dozen? I'd say Pritzker, Shapiro, (I'd say Harris or H. Clinton, but that's behind us.), who else.... Some I'm not thinking of at the moment, I'm sure.
He would not only be wiser, but he would t own actually possibly be qualified. As he is not now. Imagine taking someone with his limited experience — not matter how smart he is — and asking him to repair the massive destruction Trump has done. We need an experienced governor or senator, and frankly, this is where the vast majority of presidential candidates come from. And no "but Trump" isn't an argument. How is that working out?
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.
It isn't tRump who is doing the planning. It is likely Stephen Miller, Russell Vought, and Vance.
Don't forget R. Vought. I don't think Vance is smart enough.
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.
It would really be offensive to confirm Blanche and we need to nail it to anyone who votes for him.
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.
They were NOT mistakes!!! EVERY ACTION by the GOP MOC and party leaders since Reagan has been purposeful. They have been aided by the richest white racist men in the US and by the news media/journalists after Reagan ended the Fairness Doc. Don't think that ABC & NBC have finally found the courage to support our democracy because they did not put T's lies on last night.
They WERE mistakes as far as the good of the majority of the American people are concerned. Confirmands like Thomas, Gorsuch, Roberts, and the members of the Trump administration(past and present) have not served us well. They have not supported the Constitution and have put power and profit over the role of the public servant.
Oh, and the ABC stations owned by Sinclair Broadcasting did air Trump's diatribe. Channel 7 in D.C. was but one example.
Correct - they were mistakes based on the consequences to Americans, but they were intentional choices by the GOP MOC who had an unbreakable majority.
Thanks for the info on the Sinclair Broadcasting group.
Agreed, those people knew exactly what they were doing to get the desired results.
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.
Understand that getting to a better place will NOT be easy. The damage to the US by the GOP since Reagan is ENORMOUS.
I agree and nothing worth doing is easy. We shouldn't be here, but we are so it is time to pull on the boots and get to work.
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!
He MIGHT make a decent president, AFTER he runs for Senate and Governor and gets relevant experience. Greatness is hard to predict.
SO please tell me WHEN voters will stop being self-absorbed, racist, misogynistic, anti-LGBTQ+ and IGNORANT of the responsibilities that go with our rights? Those are the ONLY reasons why we have T!
As a citizen, we have the responsibility to learn the facts about candidates. (This has been made much harder since 95% of journalists use opinions and beliefs instead of facts & evidence since Reagan ended the Fairness Doc.)
We have the responsibility to ask ourselves:
1) Which of these 2 candidates has both character & intelligence? If ONLY 1 does, decision making is done! In 2016 & 2024, HRC & Harris should have won in landslides based on this question alone.
(Having character includes the belief that all people are equal.)
If both have character & intelligence then go to the next question.
2) Which of these 2 candidates has the best policies that will help the most people AND keep our democracy safe?
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.
You are mistaken if you think all dems would vote for a gay man as president. They couldn't vote for a white woman or a woman of mixed race because they were not perfect. So they did not vote or voted 3rd party - ignoring the FACT that they helped T to win.
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!
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.
Messages don't matter; demographics does. The mainstream media controls messages and creates them. What was the "message" of the 2016 campaign? Yeah, right. It was manufactured.
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
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.
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.
THE PROBLEM is NOT the old guard. The problem is self absorbed, racist, and misogynistic voters who are ignorant of the responsibilities that go with our right to vote.
They like to blame the old guard for the Dem candidates who win the Dem primaries. They ignore the FACT that statistics alone tells you that the winner will be in the center of the party. Progressives/dem socialists are less than 1/3rd of those who vote in primaries across the nation. 2/3rds of the voters (who often include independents et al) will vote for a centrist of the party. Bernie was never going to win in 2016. Warren had a better chance because of what she had done in Congress and because of her intelligence and ability to speak so that people could understand.
"..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.
Perhaps we need an Amendment that authorizes “Recall”, as some States do. What do you think? Any other suggestion? Because…..we’ve dug ourselves into a hole, and don’t have a tool to get ourselves out……except for the interminable wait for an election(and, even THAT is being tampered with by the wanna-be Dictator)
Because of racists, misogynists, self-absorbed citizens and ignorance of the responsibilities that go with our right to vote.
Excellent article today on all fronts!
I would vote for Pete in a New York minute.
The reason rising political stars like Talarico, Ossoff, and Buttigieg are so successful is because they ignore the right-wing name calling and distractions and turn the fight back on them. It's a lesson too few Democrats have learned, but it's why people like those three are the future of the party.