Well I had planned to wait until the debates to pick a fave, but Mayor Pete has won me over. My god, the man is so smart and articulate and calming. I admit to getting emotional during his announcement speech yesterday when he talked about speaking to his high school self. The man is a gifted communicator (I daresay he has an Obama-esque appeal). I am now emotionally and intellectually invested in him. I'm all in.
His freedom, security, democracy speech (which he wrote himself, didn't use a speechwriter) should be his "go to" speech on the campaign trail. As a left-leaning religious person, he can be someone who reclaims "freedom" and "security" from the GOP. I really think he can.
But I see the problem...
Other Dems are equally emotionally and intellectually invested in their faves already, which means that even though most of us (hopefully) will support the eventual nominee, it also means that, with SOOOOO many candidates, virtually all of us will end up being asked to support our second, or third, or even fourth preference.
I'm really not invested in anyone, yet.
Can you tell me how you feel about the fact that Buttigieg, despite being apparently incredibly intelligent, etc. has only the experience of being the mayor of a medium-sized city? I just don't get it. I still kinda think experience is something Democrats should want in their presidential candidate.
I look at it like this...
1) His experience is executive. To me, that's more important than legislative experience, where your voice is one of many, and you ultimately aren't responsible for running anything, other than a small staff. When you run a city, the buck stops with you. So I think running a city for 8 years means something, and that many of those skills are probably more transferable to the presidential position than are legislative backgrounds. Would I prefer it had he been governor for a term or two? Yes, sure, I would. But no candidate is perfect.
2) We're fooling ourselves when we think/assume that ANYONE is really "ready" to be president. Everyone has to rely on subject matter experts once they are there, be they military experts, economic experts, etc. I think Pete is the type of guy who recognizes this and would surround himself with brilliant, data-driven subject matter experts. Can you imagine the type of Cabinet he would have? And Pete's raw intelligence makes him better equipped to "get up to speed" on most issues. (And yes, everyone has to "get up to speed.")
3) Much of being President is steering the boat. Making policy decisions for others to implement. I think Pete would excel at seeing the big picture where others wouldn't as much. He seems very calm and rational and introspective, all qualities I think are vastly underrated with candidates.
4) His worldviews and experience are important for a President to have. He's an east-coast educated guy with roots in the heartland. Check and check. He's gay, but also married and religious, while not being weird or intolerant re: religion, AND he actually acknowledges atheists when he says "and those who have no religion at all," which I REALLY appreciate. Check and check. He's a vet, and he's seen the first hand effects of war, and he values our veterans and their health. Check and check. He's liberal, but not a socialist. I think he can win.
I view the others as all having significant flaws too. Bernie is too old and too radical. I'm afraid he has tons of "communist papers" all through his history. He might be able to win, but I think Pete is a much better candidate. Biden's ship has sailed. Too much baggage. O'Rourke seems like an empty suit after listening to Pete. Warren is professorial and will NEVER make a connection with voters like Pete can. Kamala Harris is my #2 now. I think she is strong.