Biden BBC interview a confusing and evasive performance

[Social Media]

 

Joe Biden’s recent sit-down with the BBC marked his first full interview since leaving office, but rather than clarifying his role in the 2024 election loss, the former president delivered a confusing and evasive performance that did little to absolve him — or his vice president. At 82, Biden showed flashes of the foreign policy experience that long defined his political career, warning against appeasement of Russia and emphasizing NATO’s importance. Yet when asked about the collapse of his re-election campaign and his delayed withdrawal, Biden stumbled.

 

He reiterated that his presidency was always intended as a “transition government” to hand power to the next generation, referencing statements made at the outset of his 2020 campaign. But when pressed on why he failed to step aside earlier — potentially giving another Democratic candidate a better shot at defeating Donald Trump — his answers became increasingly incoherent. “I don’t think it would have mattered,” Biden said, justifying his mid-July departure from the race as both difficult and “the right decision.”

 

What’s most striking, however, is not just Biden’s inability to clearly explain the timing of his withdrawal, but his conspicuous silence when it came to Vice President Kamala Harris. While he claimed the Democrats were left “with a good candidate,” the faint praise that she was “fully funded” stood in sharp contrast to the gravity of the role she assumed. It was a revealing phrase — bureaucratic and impersonal — more indicative of party logistics than presidential confidence.

 

Joe Biden gives first interview since leaving the White House | BBC News (full 30 mins)

 

 

At a crucial point in the interview where Biden might have defended Harris, blamed her for the party’s loss, or acknowledged any fault of his own, he did none of the above. Instead, he veered into a monologue about the success of his presidency: “What we had set out to do, no one thought we could do and become so successful in our agenda it was hard to say, ‘Now I’m gonna stop now.’… Things moved so quickly that it made it difficult to walk away.”

 

That reasoning is hard to square with the political reality of 2024. After a catastrophic debate performance and weeks of public and private pressure from party elders, Biden reluctantly stepped aside. His narrative of being undone by the weight of his own achievements feels, to many observers, detached from the events that actually forced his hand.

 

The absence of Kamala Harris’s name from Biden’s comments was particularly notable. For someone who claimed to be a transitional figure, his refusal to enthusiastically support his vice president raised eyebrows. If he had full faith in her, why wait until the last minute to endorse her by default? Why offer only a mechanical nod to her campaign infrastructure?

 

Those around the Bidens have reportedly picked up on the coolness between Jill Biden and Harris, especially during public events like the funeral of former President Jimmy Carter. It seems Biden would rather retreat into a version of history where his presidency was too effective to end, rather than confront uncomfortable truths about succession, party dynamics, or Harris’s lackluster campaign.

 

Ultimately, Biden’s interview said more in what it left out than in what it revealed. His refusal to accept personal responsibility or sincerely vouch for Harris speaks volumes. If the Democratic Party is still grappling with the fallout of the 2024 election, Biden's remarks offered little help — and perhaps even deepened the divide.

 

  Adpated by ASEAN Now from The Telegraph  2025-05-09

 

 

[impulse]

The sad thing is that he wasn't being confusing on purpose.  Just evasive.

 

[Pouatchee]

Thank god they are out

I hope the dems arent ever elected again

[KhunLA]

To the title ...

 

... as was his whole political career 

[impulse]

9 minutes ago, Pouatchee said:

Thank god they are out

I hope the dems arent ever elected again

 

I don't know about never, but at least not until they purge their crazies who seem to have taken over the party.

 

[ricklev]

20 minutes ago, impulse said:

 

I don't know about never, but at least not until they purge their crazies who seem to have taken over the party.

 

Thanks!  It is good to know that people on both sides of the political spectrum can find points of agreement.   Crazies should never take over a political party.