Why some lesbians don't want Pete Buttigieg to be president

[brooklynite]

Politico

Campbell Spencer, a lesbian and political consultant, moved to Washington in the 1990s to work in LGBTQ advocacy. She wooed gay and lesbian voters for Al Gore, worked a stint in the Obama White House and now serves on the board of the LGBTQ Victory Fund, which this year issued its first-ever endorsement of a presidential candidate: Pete Buttigieg.

But Spencer herself will not be voting for Buttigieg.

“Mayor Pete, he’s a trailblazer,” Spencer said in an interview. “But I’m one of these women who thinks we are way overdue for having a woman in the White House. That’s a lens through which I’m going to filter my decision.”

Buttigieg, the openly gay mayor of South Bend, Ind., has drawn notable support from gay voters and donors for his presidential bid. But interviews with a dozen prominent Democrats in the LGBTQ community spotlight a remarkable collision of goals and ideals in the community of lesbian political activists this year. As the 2020 field slowly winnows, people are divided over which glass ceiling to break first.

[oldsoftie]

1. Ugh.

[frazzled]

2. I respect her choice, but personally don't understand

anyone basing their choice on an "a": a woman, a gay person, a person of color, a man.

What somebody "is" ranks way down on the list of what I am looking for and how I choose a candidate. Breaking a glass ceiling is a bonus, but (imo) should never be a determining factor. One should look for the candidate they believe will execute the office of the presidency best. Running a vast country is the one place affirmative action is not appropriate. On my list are things like:

character
biography
depth of understanding across a range of areas: foreign affairs, economy, social issues, environmental issues
ability to communicate cogently (and preferably eloquently) and to explain complex topics to the public
managerial experience
staff and consultants, and ability to listen to advice and make informed decisions from among a range of opinion
complex thinker
sincerity (e.g., avoids pandering for the purpose of gaining votes)
etc.

I didn't vote for Barack Obama in 2008 or Hillary Clinton in 2016 because they were black or a woman. I voted for them (in primaries) because I felt they were the best candidate. Remember what Doctor King said: one should judge a person by the content of their character, not the color of their skin . . . or their gender or sexual orientation.

[MBS]

4. my voting priorities as well. n/t

[RKP5637]

5. Absolutely!!! K&R!!! n/t

[DonCoquixote]

6. at thr rate we eat rach other

there will eb a woman president in the white house; an ann coulter, Toni Ernst, Michelle bachman, or wose, some stelth "compasionate conservative: that makes every one of the dreams of Pat Roberston and Charles Koch come true. Note: this is not saying women are conservative, hell no, and this is coming from someone who think Warren is the only one with a clear agenda and clear plan, but just a gender is not going to work, unless of course the person who said this opinion will cheer a Toni Ernst as LGBT rights are trahsed.

[3catwoman3]

7. I want "a" Democrat in the White House.

One with all the qualities you have listed.

A complex thinker who can speak cogently and eloquently would be like a rain shower to a parched plant - I miss that so much.

At this particular juncture, I don’t give a rat’s posterior about gender, skin color, ethnicity or sexual orientation

[emmaverybo]

8. Well said. Agree 100 percent.

[Princetonian]

10. Thank you for speaking up. It has always struck me as nonsensical to INSIST on any gender...

...as if being of a certain gender confers greater virtue.

frazzled
2. I respect her choice, but personally don't understand
View profile
anyone basing their choice on an "a": a woman, a gay person, a person of color, a man.

What somebody "is" ranks way down on the list of what I am looking for and how I choose a candidate. Breaking a glass ceiling is a bonus, but (imo) should never be a determining factor. One should look for the candidate they believe will execute the office of the presidency best. Running a vast country is the one place affirmative action is not appropriate. On my list are things like:

character
biography
depth of understanding across a range of areas: foreign affairs, economy, social issues, environmental issues
ability to communicate cogently (and preferably eloquently) and to explain complex topics to the public
managerial experience
staff and consultants, and ability to listen to advice and make informed decisions from among a range of opinion
complex thinker
sincerity (e.g., avoids pandering for the purpose of gaining votes)
etc.

I didn't vote for Barack Obama in 2008 or Hillary Clinton in 2016 because they were black or a woman. I voted for them (in primaries) because I felt they were the best candidate. Remember what Doctor King said: one should judge a person by the content of their character, not the color of their skin . . . or their gender or sexual orientation.

[elleng]

12. Ditto

[BootinUp]

14. Yes. Nt

[PatrickforO]

3. Well, she certainly has that right. She, like all the rest of us, can

support whomever she wants.

However, I hope, should our candidate BE Buttigieg, she would bring herself to support him.

I'm supporting Warren, of course, because I genuinely feel the policies she's advocating would materially help me, my family and most Americans. I'm not supporting her because she's a woman; I'm supporting her because of the intelligence, dynamism and 'can-do' spirit she brings to the table. In other words, I think her the best qualified.

[Celerity]

11. I absolutely think your approach and reasons are the right ones, I completely agree with how

you arrived at your support of Warren (as well as being more than a little sympathetic towards those underpinnings.) It is the same process of how I arrived at support for Buttigieg. His sexuality was never a major reason, and certainly never his gender (whether pro or con.)

[Sapient Donkey]

13. Agreed. So long as she or anyone else isn't a "my candidate or bust" type, then they are free to

have whatever opinion they want. Also, I would say so long as they don't label anyone a sexist (or any *ist) based on solely on them not supporting candidate X. Obviously if the person says they don't think a woman should or could be president, then that label would likely apply.

[Celerity]

9. as a fellow lesbian, I know this type well, and I do not know why they bother with

with remaining in an LGBTQ (which the last time I checked included gay MEN), multi-spectrum organisation, when they turn around and play exclusionary gender-only based games. It makes them no better than people who would write THEM off for assorted endeavours in life simply because they are lesbian. It is reductionist and shows prejudice IMHO.

I rate people on the content of their character and intellect, and capacity to achieve and excel at what they are attempting to do. The fact that Pete is an openly gay man is just a personal bonus (personally for me, as I am all about normalisation) BUT is NOT the main reason I support him for POTUS. I support him because I think he would do the best job and has the most unique skillset for these times we all live in. I had barely heard of him (his short DNC chair run was the only other time I had even seen him mentioned) before thsi POTUS cycle. He won me over completely due to me listening to his speeches and reading what he stood for, why he wanted to be President, and how he would govern. Nothing else was a reason for my support in terms of principle drivers.

We already have open lesbian and bisexual women US Senators, and mayors of major cities, etc. Colorado now has an openly gay man, Jared Polis, for a Governor. I would be curious to know what the lesbians in the article, if they lived in Colorado, would have done in terms of his campaign.

I have ZERO issues if they support another candidate other than Pete if they do so because they think that candidate would make a better overall POTUS based off their ability and political stances. At the same time, to play gender-centric exclusionary games and make his biological gender the raison d'être for not supporting him is just not my idea of how to work towards a profound acceptance of ALL people in the nation.

[cwydro]

15. I'm a gay woman, and I find that ridiculous.

I love the headline says “some” lesbians, when it appears to be only her.

I would never vote based on gender or sexual orientation.

[RhodeIslandOne]

16. You can vote for whomever you wish in the primary

After that, you have ONE choice. The Democratic nominee.

[demigoddess]

17. the reason to want a woman in the White House is because that will

prove to misogynists that their wishes are not the wishes of the majority. That we do not stand for discrimination in that area. Despite his absolute talent for the office of president, that is one thing that Obama's presidency gave us. A big fat opposition to racists' beliefs that black men are not as good as white men. We should keep doing it.

[OhZone]

18. I'm lez -

and I just want Trump OUT!

I like Buttigieg, and I also like Harris and Warren, but I support Biden. I think he has the best chance. And I admire his empathy and compassion.

I would love a female and/or gay person, but this time out, beating Trump with any of our Dem candidates is my priority.