Jim, I thought I answered these questions. I oppose Buttigieg’s candidacy. I will use whatever platform I have to expose and oppose his candidacy and I will amplify those that do the same — unless and until he has support from Black voters. At a time when 90% of elected leaders are white, and 65% of them are white males, Buttigieg is unacceptable. He adds to those numbers and he’s unqualified. I repeat — he adds to those numbers and he’s unqualified. That’s a double whammy and that’s double the trouble. Let me put it another way. His political credit score has derogatory information and negative accounts. With that derogatory information and those negative accounts, it’s offensive for unqualified white politicians to ask for political credit. His political credit history is too short. He needs to establish a solid political credit history with progressively larger accounts over time. He needs to pay his dues and pay his debts. Until then, he’s not worth the risk because he adds to numbers that need to change and he’s unqualified. That’s what white-lending institutions tell me all the time; the way it works for banks is how it works in the ballot box for me. Now, I’m not singling out Buttigieg; he’s unqualified and he benefits from white male privilege. That makes him different from the others. Plus, I wrote about Sanders and Gillibrand. Did you not see? Your assumption is baseless. And I’m working on a piece about Biden. I think a better question is why are you singling me out? There are all sorts of pieces everywhere by people who oppose Buttigieg. Let me be clear: It’s simple for me. He’s an unqualified white male and that’s disqualifying. Here’s my source again: 90% of elected officials are white, and 65% of them are white men.