President Joe Biden still has an easy and telegenic smile. And during a flickering moment in his interview with ABC News’ George Stephanopoulos — broadcast Friday evening as a 30-minute special after being taped earlier that day — that covered a lot.
The commander-in-chief is in the midst of a relentlessly brutal press cycle following his appearance in the June 27 CNN debate against presumptive Republican nominee Donald Trump. That TV appearance was an opportunity he should never have taken. The format didn’t do him any favors in the first place, and Biden’s attitude made it clear that even the moderators who fact-checked in real time (as CNN’s Jake Tapper and Dana Bash didn’t) wouldn’t have saved him. This second press appearance, a 22-minute interview that ABC aired without edits or interruptions, was less an opportunity to clear the air than a necessary appointment—and a postponed one at that, eight days after his mild-mannered, coy, and confusing responses on an eminently fact-checkable Trump, who pretended and outright lied without a good answer, plunged his campaign into chaos.
So when Stephanopoulos opened by bringing up the debate — as he naturally would — Biden broke into that classic, practiced politician smile, a warm sign that he understood there were problems to be solved. When Stephanopoulos quoted Nancy Pelosi as saying Biden had a “bad night,” Biden snapped and said, “Definitely so” in a voice almost as raspy and difficult to understand as the one from the debate — again, eight nights earlier.
Within 30 seconds, Stephanopoulos asked a follow-up question: Biden said he was exhausted, and while Stephanopoulos admitted the president had been busy traveling for a month, he had already been back on the East Coast for several days before the debate. As he listened to this series of facts, Biden let his face adopt an expression familiar from the debate he was trying to erase from public memory. His eyes looked before the camera into an unknown distance; his mouth hung open limply.
Anyone who has been fortunate enough that relatives can live to old age recognizes this expression and also remembers it without any pain.
Biden responded to Stephanopoulos that he had undergone medical tests after his debate for “some infection — a virus,” but that he had just come down with “a really bad cold.” Asked if he rewatched the debate, Biden said: “I don’t think so, no.” The qualifier said it all: saying he hadn’t seen it since he experienced it, he didn’t seem sure.
And the president seemed combative at times, telling Stephanopoulos that “you’ve had some bad interviews” that matched Biden’s own “bad night.” If this was meant as a joke, it didn’t land. And he, given a quiet space (an interview in what appeared to be a school library in Madison, Wisc., where Biden had campaigned, as opposed to a debate stage where he was berated by Trump), was able to name some of his achievements and some goals for his second term. Unfortunately, this was done in the context of damage control. And it was delivered in the same unstable tone now familiar to viewers. When Biden described the tensions he faced: “I’m not just campaigning, but I’m running the world,” viewers’ hearts may have stopped for a moment; Biden went on to clarify his statement, but a certain skill with words has simply disappeared.
Elsewhere, Biden appeared to be living in a bubble. And it was within this bubble that he spoke most clearly and distinctly. He simply refused to acknowledge his position in the polls, saying his internal polls showed different results. He refused to consider the idea that other party leaders would ask him to abandon the ticket. And he said he would feel optimistic if he lost the election: “As long as I gave it my all and did the best job I know I can do – that’s what this is about.” For the donors who refuse to give to the party until Biden leaves the ticket, this race is about more than whether Biden meets a personal standard.
It took Biden eight days of preparation to give ABC News 22 minutes of screen time. It wasn’t enough. How much more preparation would there have been? Or how much shorter should they have cut the interview? Part of the job of a party’s candidate, and of a president, is to make the case in all kinds of contexts, to reach all kinds of people, voters and stakeholders alike, from lawmakers to other world leaders. Biden’s debate performance has certainly traveled far and wide, and he deserved the chance to clear the air. But by giving him 22 minutes of speaking in a disconnected and often resentful and sarcastic manner, it seemed clear that Biden is unwilling, and crucially, unable to stand up for himself.
Unfortunately, seen through the prism of television, Biden is not only losing the war against his opponent, but also finds himself in a seemingly unwinnable position. He waited eight days to give a relatively sympathetic interviewer a small amount of time – and this was the result. It wouldn’t be an unreasonable expectation that the campaign-saving interview would have lasted an hour, for example. But if this was the result of half an hour, what else would have been unearthed if the clock had been allowed to continue? Or if the interview had taken place closer to the debate?
Since the Nixon-Kennedy debate in 1960, elections have been won and lost on television. And it may not be a fair expectation that a president can argue his case on TV — but it is the expectation. And it’s one that Biden doesn’t seem to realize that no matter how much rest he gets or how rigidly his campaign controls the timeline, he can’t achieve.