rump and his ignorant ways, that age and experience don't count for crap. rump is in his 70s. You wouldn't know it. rump's experience? A joke, unless it is some tomfoolery at a massage establishment. To me now, being honest and having integrity means far far more. Especially after rump.

but I find it hard to get over 37 and mayor of a small city (Cary NC is bigger) with no other political experience. Now, unlike Trump, I think he would surround himself with great people and I also think he would listen to them. I might wind up voting for him in March of next year depending on who is or isn't viable by then.

head on his shoulders and has a quick wit about him. He obviously has intelligence and his wits about him and this has impressed me to no end.

I'll admit, even though it is way too early, I'm leaning towards him actually. Like he said on a PBS interview, it's time for those his age to step up to the plate (my words) and take more responsibility for government, after all, they are going to have to live with it later on. Impressive. Running city government by the way isn't a cake walk (you know this of course), I was volunteer city manager of my city one time, and I was amazed at all of the things that go on into running a city. Kind of the funnel point for everything that goes on above at the state and/or federal level, descending down to the city government level. It can be overwhelming at times.

We will make either a sharp left or sharp right. To me that means vision means much more than experience. Buttigieg has vision, perhaps more than any other candidate. We may find ourselves happily swept up on it.

say, "That guy is going places!"..

would make up the greatest Cabinet in history. Imagine Joe Biden as Secretary of State, for instance.

for years to come.

He will help change take root.

Reagan and his Press Secretary laughing and joking about people getting AIDS.

I suspect the GOP hasn't changed much.

Did you notice Tapper at least 3 times in his opening intro of Mayor Pete refer to his husband as if he was trying to create a controversy from the get go. But neither did the Mayor or the audience take the bait. Yes, very refreshing. We've come a long way baby (to steal a phrase from the 70's)

But kudos to Mayor Pete for a brilliant town hall!! VERY impressive!! He is definitely wicked smart!!

I generally like Tapper but that was disgusting.

I sort of think that's something that helps one at a job, especially as the chief executive of a government organization as large as the U.S.

That's what the last two years have led me to believe, anyway.

And none other than President Barack Obama met with the 36-year-old Harvard grad, considering him one of the Democratic Party's potential nominees in the 2020 presidential election. He's obviously smart and experienced enough to choose a quality running mate and a quality cabinet.

I hadn't heard that.

Certainly HRC has been meeting with people - is that an edorsment as well?

I think Obama has indicated he's not going to endorse anyone until the primaries play out.

Yes, when you write that Obama is "considering him one of the Democratic Party's potential nominees" by meeting with him is what you state makes him viable, so you are indeed using Obama's "consideration" as proof of viability.

Is that clearer?

I'm just telling you how your post is interpreted. Maybe you want to go back and edit it to make it more clear that you don't consider meeting with Obama to be evidence of Pete's electability.

Again, I did not say Obama endorsed Buttigieg.

That is what I read.

Apologize and move on

And to whom?

Original: So, yes you indicated that he indeed endorsed Pete as a Democratic 2020 POTUS candidate.

Edited: So, yes you indicated that he indeed (considered him as) endorsed Pete as a Democratic 2020 POTUS candidate.


Regardless, your attempt at editing still doesn't show that I said Obama endorsed Buttigieg. Too bad for you that you couldn't edit my posting!

And Buttigieg still has more government executive experience than Trump does.

I hope not.

Whoever we run will need to be an unconventional candidate, who will make his or her own rules. Many of the people running are already rule breakers- we've got the oldest candidate ever, first woman of color, an avowed socialist, first climate change candidate, and the youngest candidate ever.

We are also at a unique time in our history, it's a time of major change. If they win, they will not be governing by the old rules either.

So I am looking for the candidate who has the best vision for what is coming, regardless of whether the fit the mold of past candidates or expectations

which I thought was a funny and smart way to defuse the issue. Which gave me some insight into how he will handle the mud that would be slung at him. No doubt Trump will call him "Little Pete," or something, and I think Buttigieg will have a snappy comeback to kill the nickname. Having snappy answers is itself an unconventional requirements but essential for running against Trump.

would say is an advantage.

Good messaging.

However, at this point in history, I will take experience over youth, enthusiasm and humor.

Like I have said before, once he gets some capitol hill experience under his belt, and shows his ability to navigate the landmines there, he'll instill more confidence. Even being a two term Governor (while not the historically best training for the Oval Office) would show calm under fire.

Edited to add: I was blown away by John Edwards in 2003. He was magnetic and accessible. That, as history shows, is not enough. (No, I'm not saying that Pete has the flaws that Edwards had. I'm saying that we need more than a magnetic personality.)

And I'm also saying recent history is not a good guide to this race. This is an election of transformation. It's much more like 1980 or even 1860 than 2004. In both those cases, an unlikely candidate won and went on to make major changes in our politics. Regardless of what you are looking for, the outcome won't be a "return to normal," but a new way to move forward.

Trump showed us that. His fans made that false equivalency.

(and no, I'm not equating DT with PB, before that gets started...)

Age is good for experience, but tends to get stuck in its ways. That's why I think age is good in an advisory role and youth is good for leading a new way. Everything is not one or the other.

It sounds like an opinion that everything is "one or the other."

That sounds like an opinion that that Pelosi, with her vast experience, isn't leadership material, but rather "advisory material" to a younger, perhaps more male candidate.

Just an FYI.

I made another reply to further clarify for those who missed it.

on my part....

Or using the age/experience card to disguise some other phobia?

so you can stop with your insinuations. Yes, I think experience matters. If you want a prime example why, look at what Pelosi just did to Trump during the shutdown. She ran rings around him.

And a lot of "experienced" people got fooled and voted for the war in Iraq.

look at Pelosi running rings around Trump during the shutdown.

RFK's first job after law school was Attorney General. And he ran rings around George Corley Wallace and convinced JFK and the war cabinet to ignore Nikita Khrushchev's second wire.

After a stint as a correspondent he had a string of highly publicized jobs as counsel to Senate committees and other jobs. His profile was in some ways higher than his brother.

The Senate Judiciary Committee gave Kennedy an easy ride, however, there were questions asked pointing to Kennedy's inexperience:

Senator Dirksen and Senator Roman L. Hruska, Republican of Nebraska, did bring out the relatively brief legal experience of Mr. Kennedy. But they did not press the point hard, and they repeatedly praised his character and ability.

Mr. Kennedy, who is 35 years old, looked even more youthful in the witness chair, his slim figure in repose and an occasional smile flashing. He was an assured, quiet witness, and he showed little emotion until he seemed to get the impression that Senator Hruska was challenging his qualifications.

The Senator brought out that Mr. Kennedy had never tried a suit before a judge or jury, had never chosen a jury or written a trial brief and had never negotiated a settlement.

And we don't know how effective a POTUS he would have been, or if even if he would have won the election.

It was about his experience when he was nominated for AG.

Ultimately, it resulted in 5 U.S. Code § 3110 (aka The Bobby Kennedy Law of 1967).

So I am comparing Bobby Kennedy's POTUS run.

Is that clearer?

When Buttigieg is nominated for AG, then RFK's experience for AG would be relevant.

RFK went directly from law school to AG.

He was a very high profile player in campaigns and as chief counsel to various Senate Campaigns. The fact that you didn't correct that absurd misstatement of a highly publicized decade of professional service but want to debate a completely different issue displays only that you are careless with the words you use.

RFK did not go from law school to the position of AG.

The Nation blasted the appointment as “the greatest example of nepotism this land has ever seen,” while Newsweek called it a “travesty of justice.” Irresponsible, said a New York Times editorial: “It is simply not good enough to name a bright young political manager, no matter how bright or how young or how personally loyal, to a major post in government.” The President would shrug off criticism by joking, “I can’t see that it’s wrong to give him a little legal experience before he goes out to practice law.”

And we don't know if he would have won the Election, or how effective a POTUS he would have been.

and get people excited?

Like the GOP did with Sarah Palin?

How did that work out for them? And the rest of us?

And before we get started, no, I am not comparing Pete with Sarah Palin. I'm pointing out a hole in your - or shall we say the theory that BTRTN posits, which validates your feelings.

Also - you might benefit from watching "A Face in the Crowd," which is more upfront about it's authorship than an anonymous, snarky blog.

claiming you are not making such comparisons. Meanwhile, you are ignoring the arguments and comparisons that people actually are making.

BTRTN is an anonymous, snarky political blog, which is not an indicator that it's reliable source of data and analysis, which is what makes the "arguments and comparisons" by people more credible.

Just because an anonymous blogger validates one's feelings, that doesn't make that blogger an "expert," on "how experience works out for us" - your exact words....

Alexander the Great was 18 years old when he took over the world, but I am not comparing Buttigieg to him. And before you go there, I realize he didn't actually take over the entire world.

But if your trusted source for political data and analysis is an anonymous snarky blog, then there is not much common ground for us to discuss politics.

and I think he will contribute a lot in the upcoming debates. With so many candidates, it will be interesting to see what develops.

or at least two terms as Governor, and he'll have the chops.

It may be that he is literally the Anti-Trump (young, smart, capable, polite, empathetic, accomplished on his own, a veteran, a scholar, executive experience), or that he is just a damn good candidate...but whatever the reason, he is my current favorite out of the field because he is unknown, young and unbeholden to a career's worth of IOU's.

It has always been a long shot candidacy, but if he gets enough exposure, momentum can be a very fickle thing...

Have been very impressed with Buttigieg, I think I can even pronounce his name. He really does well in the townhall format, and is definitely on the list for consideration...an abundance of good candidates to consider...

At first I thought it was "booty judge" which is horrible in the day and age of #metoo.

it was his husband's which said buddha-judge. Though said fast enough they are the same.

for the office of President. I don't know how far he'll go this time, but I think he could make a great President. He really seems to care about service more than self-promotion -- the polar opposite of the slug we have in office now. If we don't get Pete Buttigieg, I would like to see someone with a lot of his qualities.

to hear someone speak the simple truth. Oh America, we have so lost out way! Our moral compass is so not working. Buttigieg's comments about Pence and the moral instructions to us in the Gospel from the Sermon on the Mount. Feed and cloth the poor. Help and befriend the immigrant.

Buttigieg has what we Buddhists call discriminating wisdom and infinite light. I hope gets the opportunity to be in a debate.

I flat out said, I don't think a 37 year old with no federal or statewide government experience is qualified to be President. If you want exhibit A for why I value experience, look at Nancy Pelosi who just took Trump to the cleaners. Want another example, look at McConnell and what he was able to do. Assuming McConnell doesn't lose in 2020, the next President will have to deal with a leader McConnell (one hopes minority leader). I don't want to see the reverse of what Pelosi did.

Been so long ago I've forgotten.

Look at how AOC, merely 29 years old, become the most talked about Congresswoman in the country. And if you saw her 5 minutes with Michael Cohen, did more to advance the investigation than anyone else, and not one second of the traditional grandstanding.

If you can look at Pelosi's running of the house contrasted with her two immediate predecessors and not see the talent that woman has I don't know what to say. I really don't. As for McConnell, with 51 seats and a caucus who hates Trump and fundamentally disagrees with him on both foreign policy and trade, plus two retirees who had no reason to go along, he had only one lost vote (health care where a combo of Trump and brain cancer cost him McCain's vote). I hate him with the passion of a million suns but underestimating his talent is a sin from which I don't think we can recover from.

One thing I can say about Mayor Pete is that I like him. I really really like him.

There is a place for age and experience and also for young, fresh ways of looking at and doing things. Isn't that one of those major crossroads in life. . . where you have to let go and let your kids make their own decisions and have faith in the way you raised them?
I think it's the same here. The older sages in the government have created the national environment that the next generation was raised in. At some point they have to start letting go and trusting the new generation. Eventually they will have to let go, better to slowly step back and advise them rather than trying to control them. You have to let go at some point. Go out gracefully and trusting the situation you left.

definitely be a force to reckon with during the primaries. We are in the midst of a time when his relative youthful age and inexperience (read outsider) will serve to benefit him among many potential voters. Add to that his demeanor, views and ideas and he has a real chance of having an impact.

But then again I don't know anything else about him either. Has there been polling made on how many would have qualms about voting for a male president because a "first gentleman" would be accompanying him to the white house? I did see polling somewhere on how many would have trouble voting for socialists of muslims, but I don't remember if gay was one of the categories.

worse than socialists and had a majority willing to vote for one.

It's 2019 and for those of us who are progressive, another person's sexual orientation shouldn't even be a concern on the checklist as we scrutinize candidates. I know it is an issue for a lot of Republicans, but they're narrow-minded.

If it's an accurate reflection of the electorate, it looks like your guy should have less of a problem than Bernie. Those 30% are probably hard-core republicans anyway. If over 50% of the country doesn't want to vote for you based on your sexual orientation, then it matters, whether you like it or not.

[img][/img]

Still disheartening that such significant proportions of Americans are totally reserved/very uncomfortable with these categories.

Unlike most groups, women have done better than men as pioneers in terms of federal and statewide electoral offices. The first out gay person elected (as opposed to reelected) was Tammi Baldwin. The first out person elected as governor was Kate Brown we now have Jared Polis as well. Only out Senators are Tammi Baldwin and Kristin Sinema. I can't think of any other demographic in which the women have taken so much of the pioneering role.

I agree about how we need someone who's been around the block a few times, given the mess they are going to find when they get in office. I'd like to see him be a senator first. But I can also see him wondering what kind of chance he'd have in Indiana of ever becoming a senator or governor. Sure like him, though.

and not something he'd get as a senator, and something many seem not to consider.

I look forward to hearing more from him.

I hope they let him on the debate stage.