,
6 tweets,
2 min read
Read on Twitter
Buttigieg’s statement repelled many (incl. me) who felt attracted by his persona and stated principles. Not bc there’s some kind of no-criticism litmus test. But bc it suggests Buttigieg and his true principles are not what his campaign plays them to be.
It is a cheap shot, a sexist shot, and a sign of inherently bad character that one would pre-roll their campaign by trying to align with years of anti-HRC sentiment. Folks - I don’t like Hillary. I voted for her in general, but I don’t like her. NEVERTHELESS:
. . . . If I wanted the Democratic voting and fundraising majority, and the driving ppl of our party, to find me a reliable upholder of their values, I would never in a million years have targeted the Dem popular vote winner a few weeks before my announcement.
HRC is both unpopular and popular. She is popular among those whose votes Buttigieg would need, and even more so among those whose labor and commitment he would need. Coupled with lack of national experience, it’s a disturbing sign that anti-HRC themes were introduced so early.
I think HRC was 100% correct that “America’s already great.” America does not need to return to a state of greater white supremacy, to the 1860s, and we do not need to cater to such atavism to win the “heartland.” Stalwart Dems in the “heartland” need to know he’s for THEM.
We don’t. Not now.
I think it’s fixable. But in light of Buttigieg’s whole emerging theme that only the “heartland” is important, I’m not sure he will fix it, or even wants to.
I think it’s fixable. But in light of Buttigieg’s whole emerging theme that only the “heartland” is important, I’m not sure he will fix it, or even wants to.
