Mayor Pete gets a bad burn

Ow. Michael Harriot responds to Buttigieg’s claim that black folk just need more inspiration to succeed.

It proves men like him are more willing to perpetuate the fantastic narrative of negro neighborhoods needing more role models and briefcase-carriers than make the people in power stare into the sun and see the blinding light of racism. Get-along moderates would rather make shit up out of whole cloth than wade into the waters of reality. Pete Buttigieg doesn’t want to change anything. He just wants to be something.

Read the whole thing. Especially you, Mr Buttigieg, and after you finish you can just go off and quietly retire from the race.


  1. Pierce R. Butler says

    The first viable gay presidential candidate turns out to be a staunch establishmentarian.

    The first plausible female presidential candidate was a corporatist war criminal.

    The first successful black presidential candidate was both of those, an opponent of progressive changes except on the most superficial level.

    It’s (almost!) enough to make you want to swear off voting for anyone other than straight white men.

    I shudder to think what the first strong atheist presidential candidate will stand for.

  2. chrislawson says

    I read that piece from Michael Harriot. It’s great. Particularly the way Harriot dissected Buttigieg using one of the benefits of affirmative action, creating successful role models for minorities, and inverting that into another racist argument.

  3. microraptor says

    At present, the only thing Buttigieg seems to be useful for is siphoning support away from Biden and increasing the chances for Bernie and Warren.

  4. Curious Digressions says

    Best line in the article:

    “Kids need to see evidence that education is going to work for them,” Buttigieg explained whitely…”

    Pointing out that someone else lacks a privilege you have isn’t the same as saying you didn’t work for what you’ve got. It’s not a contradiction.

  5. Akira MacKenzie says

    Oh Pete… I know you’re gay and wouldn’t get along with most Republicans, but between this and your sudden reversal on Medicare For All are you sure your in the right party?

  6. a_ray_in_dilbert_space says

    Not my top choice. However, he has run a disciplined campaign, and the main point we need to remember is that he would be infinitely preferable to the orange shitgibbon.
    I didn’t plan to support him in the primary, but no matter who the nominee is, it’s vote blue, no matter who.

  7. Snidely W says

    Good piece by Michael Harriot. For context though, that was a quote from 2011 when Pete was running to be Mayor Pete.

    Anybody know if his position has “matured” since then? I know that he has gotten a lot of feedback about a variety of racial issues since then. Nothing was mentioned about that date in the article.

  8. nomdeplume says

    And today I see a report that Obama is planning to start campaigning if it looks like Sanders (and I presume Warren) might get the Democrat nomination. All over the world, putative “centre-left” parties have moved to become pale imitations of their right wing corporatist opponents.

  9. Snidely W says

    Just to be clear on my views, I’m for either Elizabeth or Bernie with all the rest a distant “if I have to”.

    Pete is just another centrist that the monied interests are starting to foist on us, while funding attacks on Bernie and Elizabeth. All supported by centrist media that like to throw around words like “extreme” without bothering to note that the policies that they support are actually quite popular and thus actually the real “center”.

  10. cates says

    #8 Snidely W
    “Nothing was mentioned about that date in the article.”
    Except the twice (at least) that it was.

  11. stroppy says

    Buttigieg has a polished line of patter and that’s about it.

    Speaking of siphoning, a couple of political ads running here, one for Steyer and the other for Bloomberg. One good thing, they both kick Trump in the teeth. On the other hand, it’s Steyer and Bloomberg…

    So about 36% of Americans can name the three branches of government. Trump’s “patriot” base loves him because they can identify with a jackass who goes around yelling, bloviating, and generally f’ing things up. And the best commentary that pundits can conjure up is wistful pining for Mr. Rogers–great guy but come on…

    America go home, you’re drunk.

  12. microraptor says

    Notice how much of Bloomberg’s ad mentions 9/11?

    Someone stage an intervention before he turns into Giuliani.

  13. rgmani says


    I don’t know if I saw the same ad that you did but the one I saw mentioned 9/11 just once at the beginning.

  14. jack16 says

    My choice; Bernie, Tulsi, and Steyer. I call Warren a poor fourth; she’s got some baggage. Steyer is somewhat suspect since he is wealthy. He has however made the right moves. My wife alerted me to his candidacy and she’s careful.


  15. chrislawson says


    They all have baggage. Steyer, for instance, used to work for Goldman Sachs, opposes Medicare For All preferring some undefined better option, and has avoided clarifying his position on abortion rights. Tulsi Gabbard has a long list of good policies, but wants to retain the Electoral College despite it manifestly proving itself incapable of performing the task it was created for. Looking at their past records, I think either of them would make an excellent President. But they all have baggage.

  16. Captain Kendrick says

    Jeebus, we are effed. 4 more years of Trump. You all do realize that he doesn’t even have to win, right? All he needs to do is keep it close. Putin, Moscow Mitch and Lindsey Dramaqueen will do the rest. Shit, the Republicans won’t even have to use their Divide and Conquer play — we are doing that all by ourselves, without any of their help, thank you very much.

  17. says

    From another post on his blog it sounds like Mayor Pete (or his PR team) read it – Pete called him out of the blue and they apparently had a good conversation. But the upshot was that Pete can’t understand because if he did he’d have to reject everything he is. The posting is worth reading; it’s 2 days later.

  18. Snidely W says

    #12 cates

    Except the twice (at least) that it was.

    Thank you for highlighting my imprecise wording. In the linked post it clearly was mentioned; that is how I learned it.
    I should have specified PZ’s article/post.

  19. blf says

    Buttigieg 2020 campaign took money from top Kavanaugh lawyers:

    Campaign admits mistake in accepting thousands of dollars from Alexandra Walsh and Beth Wilkinson, who represented nominee

    Pete Buttigieg’s 2020 campaign is returning thousands of dollars in donations from two top Washington lawyers who represented Brett Kavanaugh in his controversial confirmation hearing, saying it will not accept funds from people who helped secure the justice’s seat on the supreme court.

    Buttigieg’s campaign received $7,200 from Alexandra Walsh — $3,150 of which had already been returned because it exceeded limits — and attended a fundraiser in July that was co-hosted by the Washington lawyer. Buttigieg also received $2,800 from Beth Wilkinson, Walsh’s law partner, who also represented Kavanaugh.

    When asked by the Guardian about the donations, the campaign said it had overlooked the lawyers’ role in the Kavanaugh confirmation and had made a mistake in accepting the donations.


    Walsh and Wilkinson are frequent donors to Democratic causes. During this 2020 election cycle, Wilkinson has donated $1,000 to the California senator Kamala Harris’s campaign and $2,800 to the Colorado senator Michael Bennet’s campaign. […]

    Summary: BusinessCorruption / Influence-buying as usual, until the Grauniad caught them out.