Activists on the left are surely correct that Buttigieg does not represent the disruptive spirit of the age and that he is not an especially plausible vessel for the kind of foundation-shaking change they seek. Looked at through the prism of temperament and character, as distinct from his policy positions, he may be the most conservative candidate in the 2020 race, Trump included. Buttigieg surely would be too conservative for his party and the moment alike—too establishment, too cautious, too Clintonesque—were it not for two things. The first wave of coverage that greeted his early presidential campaign tended to emphasize the potential of his campaign even though he is young and gay. It became clear over time that both of these are essential elements. Imagine tweaking those parts of the bio. A 48-year-old straight former mayor of a small city would hardly be quickening pulses on the 2020 presidential campaign trail. Two radical developments made it safe for someone like Buttigieg to be conventional in most respects. One of the developments—the legal and cultural embrace of same-sex marriage—is now so accepted that it’s hard even to recall that 20 years ago it was unthinkable and that even a decade ago it was a bridge too far for Barack Obama. The other radical development—Trump and his presidency—is even more consequential. If Trump hadn’t shredded the concept of plausibility, turning “I can’t imagine something like that happening” into an obsolete phrase, few people would find Buttigieg plausible in 2020. But Trump did shred the old standards, and Buttigieg is plausible"

image source

Ambition, even when in its strongest pose, is not an equivalence to competence or reliability. Nor is intelligence and skill on his feet with words. The man is just plain uber-annoying, being a Biden but with his glibness quotient not near zero.

Agree or disagree with Politico, here, (source of the extended headline), about the South Bend mayor who reaches beyond his current place in things, the item being bittersweet about the man. Key to understanding the equivocal view the item presents of the mayor:

Activists on the left are surely correct that Buttigieg does not represent the disruptive spirit of the age and that he is not an especially plausible vessel for the kind of foundation-shaking change they seek. Looked at through the prism of temperament and character, as distinct from his policy positions, he may be the most conservative candidate in the 2020 race, Trump included.

Buttigieg surely would be too conservative for his party and the moment alike—too establishment, too cautious, too Clintonesque—were it not for two things. The first wave of coverage that greeted his early presidential campaign tended to emphasize the potential of his campaign even though he is young and gay. It became clear over time that both of these are essential elements. Imagine tweaking those parts of the bio. A 48-year-old straight former mayor of a small city would hardly be quickening pulses on the 2020 presidential campaign trail.

Two radical developments made it safe for someone like Buttigieg to be conventional in most respects. One of the developments—the legal and cultural embrace of same-sex marriage—is now so accepted that it’s hard even to recall that 20 years ago it was unthinkable and that even a decade ago it was a bridge too far for Barack Obama. The other radical development—Trump and his presidency—is even more consequential. If Trump hadn’t shredded the concept of plausibility, turning “I can’t imagine something like that happening” into an obsolete phrase, few people would find Buttigieg plausible in 2020.

Some might find that commentary harsh, while others might find it spot-on. It is both.

Different author, Politico again, "Why Pete Buttigieg Enrages the Young Left - It’s deeply personal—and not just because he’s challenging Bernie," which begins:

As the Iowa and New Hampshire primaries draw near and South Bend’s boy wonder, Pete Buttigieg, seems buoyant in the all-important early-state polls, “Mayor Pete” has been perpetually dogged by a major issue: the youngest and most activated voters in his party all seem to—how to put this delicately?—hate his guts.

Normally the first candidate of a generation can expect to ride a wave of youth enthusiasm, as John F. Kennedy and Bill Clinton once did. For the 37-year-old Buttigieg, it’s been quite the opposite. The newly radicalized Teen Vogue invoked a cringeworthy class-warfare pun to declare his campaign a “Lesson in ‘Petey’ Bourgeois Politics.” Jacobin, tribune of the socialist wing of the Democratic Party, has developed seemingly an entire vertical focused on slamming Mayor Pete. A writer for Out magazine, putting it in starker terms, tweeted that if he “had balls he’d run as the republican he is against trump in the primary.”

[all links within quoted text are omitted; see originals for linking]

After that, a segue, but only after pinning the tail dead square on the donkey's ass, pinned thus as a true closet elephant, little more needs saying. As mayor of a town few care about, he was able to pick his party. Why he laid that load on the Democrats is something he might explain, but in the Wine Cave Ultra Fundraiser setting of self-loving donor elite, with their status quo agenda, nobody seems to care to inquire about a Republican in Dem clothing.

Wrapping up the post with nostalgia, Heller in "Catch 22" had a character, Nately, described by Heller as, "Having lots of intelligence and no brains." The mayor by being who he is brings that recollection to mind.

___________UPDATE__________
The Atlantic writes of the mayor. To whatever extent he's the Bill Clinton of his generation, ambitious to a fault while deceptively well spoken, run him away - soon and far. We need no more of that. We need it as much as we need another Bush president. Where something in the mayor's attitude - beyond external style - shouts "George W." to me. As in "a failure waiting to happen if given the chance." Perceptions can vary, but the galling Bush-like expectation of entitlement, it is there when I look.