Biden Agrees to High Stakes Stephanopoulos Interview
The President is going all-in to undo the damage from the debate.
CNN (“ABC News interview with Biden will now air as a ‘primetime special’ on Friday“):
The ABC News interview with President Joe Biden will now air “in its entirety as a primetime special” on Friday evening at 8:00 P.M. ET/PT, the network announced Wednesday evening.
The high-profile interview will be the first televised interview the president is expected to participate in since his poor showing at last week’s CNN presidential debate.
The first clip will still air on “World News Tonight” on Friday evening.
Biden will be interviewed by ABC’s George Stephanopoulos on the campaign trail earlier in the day and ABC News says a transcript of the unedited interview will also be made available on Friday.
CNN’s MJ Lee reported earlier on Wednesday that the president privately acknowledged the next stretch of days is critical (including the president’s interview with ABC) to whether he can save his reelection bid, making clear to an ally that he understands what would prompt him to accept: “It’s just not working.” [emphasis mine]
Originally, ABC said it would air parts of Stephanopoulos’ interview with Biden on Friday at 6:30 p.m. ET on “World News Tonight with David Muir.” The extended interview would have aired Sunday on “This Week with George Stephanopoulos.”
At last week’s debate, Biden struggled to complete sentences at times and often looked lost as former President Donald Trump pumped out falsehoods, urgently raising questions about Biden’s age and ability to serve a second term.
This is a bold but perhaps necessary gambit on the part of the President. Stephanopoulos is a sympathetic interviewer. He was, after all, Communications Director and then Senior Advisor to President Clinton and obviously prefers Biden to Trump. But he’s been a professional journalist now for more than a quarter century and will be under pressure to ask tough questions.
Given the catastrophic performance in the debate, Biden will be under enormous pressure to perform well. And, frankly, even a good showing is unlikely to do the damage from the debate.
I don’t know who the source is for the passage I highlighted above but the pressure is higher than I thought if Biden himself thinks he needs to “save his reelection bid” and is seriously contemplating leaving the race if he doesn’t quickly right the ship. While there is precedent (Harry Truman and Lyndon Johnson) for eligible incumbents to withdraw from reelection bids when all the signs point to their losing, it’s never happened this late in the contest.
I do find it a bit odd that Biden agreed to a high-stakes interview and agreed to let one network use it in this fashion. Why not insist on a live interview rather than having the juicy bits released during the evening news and then have the whole thing tape-delayed into prime time? That just screams “old man can’t stay up past his bedtime.”
UPDATE: The Daily Beast (“Biden’s Interview With Stephanopoulos Could Be Over in Just 15 Minutes“) offers a twist:
Joe Biden’s “extended” interview with George Stephanopolous, intended to jumpstart a comeback for the embattled president, will last as little as 15 minutes, the Daily Beast has learned.
[…]
But The Daily Beast has learned that behind the scenes there is deep concern inside ABC News’ upper echelons that Stephanopolous could get as little as 15 minutes to conduct what should be a searching interview offering insight into the president’s mental state.
ABC News earlier declined to comment on the length of the interview. The Biden campaign denied the suggestion when questioned by The Daily Beast, while a White House spokesperson said it was “False. The interview will be longer.”
While there is no agreement between ABC News and the White House on exactly how long Biden spends with the veteran interviewer, the logistics of conducting it during campaign stops could limit it severely. Senior network figures were involved in calls Wednesday to prepare questions for the shortest time in case attempts to speak with the president for longer failed.
One source suggested it would be more in the range of 20 minutes—still a relatively short period of time for even an accomplished interviewer to cover questions both over Biden’s cognitive state and his ability to stay in the campaign.
ABC executives hope that Biden–long known for his loquaciousness–will simply give them more time once they are on the ground. They are likely to be calculating that it is in Biden’s interests to show he is sharp, alert and able to deal with questions and therefore that he will keep the interview going. The length of the interview itself will be closely watched by those wondering about Biden’s state, while its depth and substance will be a critical test for the president. He told donors Wednesday that he was “clear eyed” and in the race to win, despite mounting calls for him to quit.
The brief nature of the interview came despite reports, including by the Associated Press, describing it as an “extended” encounter between the two men. Biden had conducted few in-depth interviews even before last Thursday’s disastrous debate. The Associated Press reported that he has given 36 news conferences since taking office, fewer than any since Ronald Reagan at the same point in his presidency. Martha Joynt Kumar, director of the White House Transition Project, told the AP that Biden has conducted 128 interviews. At the same point in their presidencies Donald Trump had done 369 and Barack Obama 497.
An interview of as little as 15 or 20 minutes appears unlikely to answer demands from top Democrats that Biden make the case in public for his continued run for a second term. Under normal circumstances, a presidential interview with a major broadcaster of 20 minutes or so would be seen both as a normal level of access for the network, and a major scoop.
It may well be that the prime time scheduling is ABC’s way of forcing Biden’s hand into granting a longer interview. A 15-minute sitdown under these circumstances would likely backfire.
The news organization that has been lying to you for years about Biden’s mental and physical condition is now going to present you with a pre-taped and edited interview with Biden. Enjoy!
@TheRyGuy:
Fox News paid out a nearly billion dollar lawsuit for lying to its audience, replete with texts and emails showing Fox News hosts knew they were spreading Trump’s lies. Yet y’all continue to consume information from these and other rightwing grifters.
ABC will be fine.
@TheRyGuy:
Do you mean the guy who ushered in an unprecedented amount of legislation in 2 years with the slimmest margin of a majority in recent memory? That Joe Biden is senile? I honestly don’t know what Biden’s situation is but I have three observations.
No one is asking Mitch McConnell to step down in WV and he has been having “episodes” for a few years now. So the same people soiling themselves over Biden’s dotage are going to happily vote for McConnal without even a pregnant pause.
Even if Biden is being propped up “Weekend at Bernie” style he is still doing a better job than the entire Republican party put together.
If Republicans do believe that Biden is unfit it seems strange that they would be on the bandwagon calling for him to drop out. They must be feeling pretty insecure about their chances with Biden and prefer to run against anyone else no matter who it is. I’m guessing they know something we don’t and would rather take their chances against any younger, sharper, Democrat. They seem to think Biden is the only one who could beat Trump as well. They are begging the Democratic party to jump into the brier patch, and Democrats seem to be just stupid enough to do it.
A bold gambit? These sorts of interviews are supposed to be relatively routine for a President.
The campaign is also trying to ensure the best possible conditions – a short time limit, not live in Prime Time but during Biden’s reportedly best hours of the day, and a journalist that is likely to be less hostile than most alternatives. That is all smart for them to do but it’s tacit acknowledgement of Biden’s limitations.
Palace intrigue. The early pre-convention debate plan + the muted and lazy response + the leaks, and it looks like one or more of Biden’s senior staff want to push him out. Staff is giving off strong ‘just clock in and clock out’ vibes.
Does not inspire confidence. But is a black/Indian-American woman really more likely to win? Unconvincing. Doesn’t seem the Bidens believe she’s more likely to win, either.
There’s the question of winning, but there is also the question of fitness for continuing in office. Given the threat of an unrestrained, dictatorial Trump, winning is the primary concern. But it’d be a lot easier if our candidate was also fit. Kamala is fit.
@Michael Reynolds: If swing state voters preferred a fit woman to an unfit man, Hillary would be finishing up her second term.
There may be some endeavors that’re “a lot easier” for women of color than for white men, but winning presidential votes is not on that list. We may see a candidate that’s fit, but that’s not what they see.
@DK:
Hillary won the popular vote. She was a lousy candidate, on top of the fact she’d been demonized for decades, on top of the fact that she was a ‘wife’ looking to take over her husband’s old job. And people had not seen Trump in action. And we’d just had 8 years of a Dem in the WH. Still, she out-polled Trump.
If it were possible to swap her out, I’d be for it – she’s never impressed me much. But it isn’t. So we have Biden or Harris.
As the days pass and the views of voters come into focus, it is becoming apparent that the risks that come from replacing Biden are lower than staying with him and the upside is far greater. Frankly, a 15 minute interview will be mocked and could very well be fodder for the cold opening on SNL.
If the interview isn’t aired as one-take, it is likely to backfire. If just a few edits are in it, that will be what is seized upon.
I think it was like 15 edits in a one-minute Tik Tok of Biden not long ago. This will be one very, very, well examined bit of “tape”.
@JKB: “If the interview isn’t aired as one-take, it is likely to backfire. If just a few edits are in it, that will be what is seized upon.”
I’m sure you realize that no televised interview in history has ever been “one-take.” There will be multiple cameras, including at least one on Stephanopolous. This is television, not a deposition.
I’m not a major donor – looks like $3250 to Biden this cycle – but I’m shifting more to the Senate. I am not alone in that. Ari Emmanuel says that’s what the Hollywood money is doing. I’ll go all-in for Kamala as I intended to do with Joe, but I resent being asked to piss money away on a candidate who is putting himself ahead of the country.
@Michael Reynolds:
A contradictory dodge. It can’t be that Hillary won the popular vote despite sexism, Russian election interference, voter suppression, and the dumb Emailghazigatepaloiza witch hunt…but also Hillary was a lousy candidate. Which is it?
The truth is Hillary was a perfectly fine candidate, who should have won easily, and would have if only black voters could vote. Blaming it all on Hillary is way to avoid acknowledging the lousiness and political stupidity of white American voters, and particularly white male voters.
I see no evidence they would be any less stupid regarding Kamala; indeed, they are likely to be much more stupid. So yes, we have an old white man or a younger woman of color. What makes anyone think she can win where he cannot — unless they are in denial about the ways racism and sexism would impact her candidacy? She’d have to win with the electorare we have, not the electorate we aspire to.
Joe Biden may know what ‘real Americans’ in the Midwest and Sun Belt really think and say about black women privately — even if some here won’t publicly admit it. He may know better than to play pretend and trust them to vote for her. Hopefully, that factors into his calculus.
Despite the frequent complaint I encounter in liberal spaces that the mainstream media is secretly in the tank for Trump, there is nothing they love more than comeback stories, and it feels like that’s what they’re setting up for now—a Richard Nixon “Checkers” moment, or Obama’s Rev. Wright speech.
Not that it’s guaranteed to succeed this time, of course.
Still, the skepticism and doubt everyone is engaging in plays right into this gambit.
As a side note, The Boston Globe and The Atlantic today called for Biden to step aside in favor of Harris.
@DK:
Nonsense. A win is not proof of a good candidate, and losing is not proof of a bad candidate. Michael Jordan lost more than a few basketball games, he was still a great player.
Candidates have skill sets. Some are better than others. The ones with great skills don’t always win, the ones with poor skills don’t always lose. Hillary had poor skills and ran a weak campaign. Obama should have backed his Veep then, when Biden was still healthy. Obama was a great candidate, but not a good party-builder.
@Michael Reynolds: “Obama should have backed his Veep then, when Biden was still healthy. Obama was a great candidate, but not a good party-builder.”
Obama didn’t “back his veep” then because Biden declined to run in the wake of his son’s death. Not sure what a good party-builder would have done in that circumstance.
@Michael Reynolds:
Nope. If not based on the fact that she lost, then what is this based on? A woman cannot be a lousy candidate and win the popular vote in this sexist country. Black people saw the same candidate, skills, and campaign, and voted for Hillary had a 90% clip. The lousy candidate in 2016 was the deranged, racist scumbag that barely pulled 5% of black voters because he sucked so bad.
Bust cannot get most white mrn to admit there’s something seriously wrong, politically, with the supermajority of white male voters who looked at Hillary and Trump and voted for the incompetent, racist pervert — that they have weak political discernment. That’s why to this day so many white men left and right continue to lie about, attack, criticize, and blame Hillary instead of themselves. When it comes to women politicians, most white male voters’ brains are broken. They are hopelessly biased amd blinded.
That is what candidate Harris would have to deal with, doubly so as black woman of mixed heritage. I hope the Biden is clear-eyed about that, as he considers next steps. Kamala Harris does not appear to have stronger skills than Hillary (or Biden).
Should be an interesting week. The polls coming out show what is probably a significant change. That said, people’s memories are short and a good interview would bring them at least partly back to where they were before. (Which was middling at best.)
That said, I’m ready to support Harris in support of America living up to its ideals as opposed to Trump’s vision, if you could call anything he has “vision”.
A last-minute change to Harris would generate a ton of short-term interest and I’m sure most of us are wondering what VP she would go with. Their job would be to cut out for them, to demonstrate competence and maintain the initial excitement.
@Andy: Great, he’s going to do what Trump and Republican politicians have done for years—Play to their strengths. I don’t see why Biden has an obligation to play to his weaknesses—other than people crave the anticipation and entertainment value of a train wreck.
On the one hand, I’d like him to knock it out of the park. On the other hand, I want an extended Cornpop story. We know he was a bad dude, so there’s probably more to the story.
@Jim Brown 32:
I’m not at all suggesting Biden has any obligation to play to his weaknesses.
And I don’t see this as playing to his strengths. If interviews were one of Biden’s strengths, his campaign wouldn’t be avoiding them to the extent it has. Restricting your candidate to controlled, scripted events is not playing to strengths, is covering for weaknesses. The only reason Biden is doing this interview is damage control. When Biden was in his prime he had no issues with interviews, but things have obviously changed.
@DK:
I voted for her, gave her money, could not stand listening to her. Hillary lost White women by two points.
@Michael Reynolds:
2016 saw a “weak” candidate win the popular vote and lose by a razor thin margin in a couple states.
2020 saw a “Strong” candidate win the popular vote and win by a razor thin margin in a couple states.
Both elections had essentially the same outcome- a couple precincts here and there and they might have been the opposite.
If qualities like “weakness” or “likability” mattered, then we would expect a more decisive change in the outcome.
The argument that some other Democrat beside Hillary could have won 2016 is really glossing over the fact that a lot of people, like a whole lotta people, really like Trump.
They didn’t vote for him because Hillary said this or that, they didn’t vote for him because of her likability, they didn’t vote for him out of a protest about being slighted by coastal elites.
They vote for him because they like him, a lot, and reject any candidate who isn’t just like him which includes every conceivable Democrat.
@Michael Reynolds: If Bush can spend 8 years as a ‘decider’ than so can Biden. Who has a now 4 year track record of sound deciding skills.
The President has never been more than a priority setter and decider. The rest is television. If the polls are correct (and they could be), no replacement is going to make up an 8 pt deficit.
But I will admit, a small part of me will enjoy watching Dems suffer should Trump win. This was an opportunity to show unwavering support for the leader of a team that denied Trump a consecutive term AND delivered a list of Executive Branch output not rivaled in modern Presidential history.
Instead, the train wreck that is the DNC pulled out their shanks THE SECOND the heat was on about something we already know about Biden.
The ‘same party’ Lolololololololololol. I’ve haven’t said this in a while but it’s in full display here. Partisan Dems and Rs run on the same type of fuel the only difference is one drives looking in the rear view mirror and the other drives looking out the passenger side window.
@Michael Reynolds: .
Will the white men and women who couldn’t stand listening to Hillary because [insert irrational subconscious issues here] enjoy hearing Kamala Harris?
Biden has much to consider. Hopefully, he is ready to be clear-eyed about both voter reaction to himself and his veep.
@CSK: Subscribed to The Atlantic from when I was living in Daejeon until last year. (Roughly a decade.) They’ve been calling for him to step down since before he stepped up. Not that I ever disagreed, but that pronouncement is simply not noteworthy.
@Chip Daniels:
This.
Voters who will vote for Trump because they like him are not gettable votes. Full stop. But, voters who will vote for Trump despite not liking him are gettable.
Trump is really unpopular in the general electorate and this is the case despite under-coverage of how much more unhinged he has become since 2020. Negative partisanship is what will win or lose this election, so every conceivable Democrat will start at what is Biden’s floor now, once they get full support from the Democratic establishment and the Dems in Disarray storyline is quashed.
Biden can still win. I believe every conceivable Democrat can still win. (“Conceivable” in the sense that they could conceivably emerge from the Democratic Convention with the nomination.) Why? Because none of them will be Trump. Seriously, which ticket would be preferable come October/November as the uninformed and unengaged voters start to pay more attention? The Democratic establishment candidate that has the resume of the last term to promote and ample strong surrogates that will stump for the party or the Republican establishment sycophantically supporting the dumpster fire that is their standard bearer and that must defend the end of Roe and tax cuts for the rich?
@Andy: I’m having a hard time reconciling this:
And this:
If it’s relatively routine, how is it tacit acknowledgment?
@Chip Daniels: It would appear that closer to “the truth” might be that one candidate ran a campaign that was lacking in 2 or 3 key states. But since I forfeit the right to speak for being a bigoted, sexist, misogynist who never supported her in the first place, I’ll just quietly slip sway and leave the discussion to the experts.
@just nutha:
They trash Trump on a daily basis.
“I come to bury Biden, not to praise him.”
@Andy: If the tomayto tomahto game makes your analysis feel more correct—then have at it. In my playbook, covering a weakness is strength, because not all weaknesses can be covered.
I suspect Biden can talk about his Administration’s priorities and current events, along with his thoughts about how best to respond with no problem.
If you have ever ran a rather large organization (and I have ran two) you know you don’t have the time to be in the weeds about numbers and percentages that Dem voters are conditioned to want to hear spewed out. There are too many internal meetings and too many partner relationship meetings to be in the weeds. I had other people I held responsible for knowing the technocratic numbers.
Of course, everyone has a boss so occasionally I’d have to get a brain dump of figures, charts, etc to present up the chain of Command. But functionally, I briefed all those numbers, percentages on trust to Senior leaders who didn’t remember them 2 slides later. I myself had forgotten them 2 minutes after the briefing concluded.
My job was to assign people to maintain or fix things and keep me apprised of status—literally are we red/yellow/ green. I zoomed in on Red status (allocate it more resources) until it moved yellow, then zoom out to make sure the 100 other plates that were my responsibility are still spinning.
The point is—this is a moment to be authentic and Biden should speak authentically the way I know a leader at that scope speaks on a day-to-day basis. Other than specialty problems the leader of managers isn’t into the numbers. He’s adding/deleting/reprioritizing his capabilities to keep the organization relevant and impactful in current conditions. And that, my friend, is how you grade the leader of a large organization. Relevancy and Impact. Biden, if he has not mentally declined, should easily be able to communicate how his direction and guidance keeps his Cabinet working their piece of the pie in a relevant and impactful way for Americans and their future—without a stream of percentages and memorized facts we are paying bureaucrats to monitor and report.
Questions on his cognitive state and ability to stay in the campaign are certainly fair game, but I’d expect the bulk of interview would address the record and plans of the current President and how they contrast with those of the former one.
I’m sure Stephanopoulos wants to be perceived as fair, but that won’t be accomplished by becoming another Matt Lauer asking Hillary fourteen different ways about how she had so many emails.
@Han:
Because it hasn’t been routine for Biden during this campaign and his term generally.
@Jim Brown 32:
Agree. Biden also has to show he can do that for another four years. This has nothing to do with memorized facts or minutiae – the problem for Biden is that a non-trivial number of people do not think he is up to the job right now, much less for the next four years. Whatever Biden’s cognitive problems are today, they will only grow over time. I’m skeptical that he can change perceptions at this point.
A senior moment at the wrong time is exactly the risk I’ve been talking about for months, and it happened at the worst moment – a debate his campaign wanted and expected to highlight his competency compared to Trump. How many more inopportune senior moments will Biden have in the next four months? Even if this interview goes well, the risk is still there.
@Michael Reynolds:
But Kamala is a woman. And Kamala is Black. And this is America.
Hillary was a decent candidate but a lousy campaigner. Harris is also a decent candidate but not a good campaigner. Before she dropped out IIRC she was polling in the 2%-3% range. The opposition had prepared against Hillary for years and they have been doing the same for Harris but that’s just politics and is true of anyone who has a decent shot. Same was true for Bernie, Warren, Biden (you think those 4 years of Hunter investigations were just for fun?) and now Newsom too.
Steve
@Jim Brown 32: “This was an opportunity to show unwavering support for the leader of a team that denied Trump a consecutive term AND delivered a list of Executive Branch output not rivaled in modern Presidential history.
Instead, the train wreck that is the DNC pulled out their shanks THE SECOND the heat was on about something we already know about Biden.”
Indeed! With this type of response the Dems deserve to lose. With the first fist to the mouth all they could do is whine and beg for their mommies. What a bunch of whining crybabies!
@CSK: If that’s your standard for go to journalism and thinking, more power to you.
@Eusebio: Questions on his cognitive state are not ones that Biden is qualified to answer if his cognitive state is an issue.
@steve:
True in the 2020 primaries Harris was a disastrous campaigner. A lot of that was trying to be all things to all voters. As a Biden replacement she’ll only have one opponent and won’t need to worry about attracting votes from him. Her task will be motivating Dems and Dem leaning independents, while garnering a percentage of the truly independent. She faces a different challenge than in 2020.
As far as, she’s black and a woman. It was also said about Obama that he couldn’t win because he was black and if women aren’t motivated to get out and vote for a woman, given the alternative, then they deserve to be wearing the white bonnets and red dresses.
@just nutha:
Just as practically all of us do here at OTB on a daily basis.
This probably won’t help the situation.
http://www.cnn.com/2024/07/04/politics/biden-governors-sleep/index.html
@CSK: I play Texas Hold ’em and Omaha for a hobby, myself. Oh, and I read and travel a little, too.
@Michael Reynolds: ’ll go all-in for Kamala as I intended to do with Joe, but I resent being asked to piss money away on a candidate who is putting himself ahead of the country.
I made a similar point in another blog and was called some pretty standard sixth-grade names. I say it’s expected that Biden says things like nobody is pushing me out, but that is what an 85 year old guy says when his kids take away his car keys. During Trump’s term Democrats brought up the 25th amendment constantly (derservedly so). Now it’s a forbidden topic?
I have a brother who is a doctor. He’s a pulmonologist/ sleep specialist, not a neurologist, but he has had some patients for over 35 years and seen some of them go into both physical and/ or cognitive decline. His take on Biden was that, if he were a patient of his, he would recommend a referral to a neurologist who would determine whether he needed cognitive testing. His concern was not so much the freezing up or slowness at times, people do that to collect thoughts, even stall for time, etc. He found the overall lack of coherency to be a bigger concern.
I say the bottom line is that Biden should have had a fairly recent cognitive test, and if he didn’t, he definitely should have one after this debate.. As ridiculous as Trump sounds when he shouts that he passed a cognitive test, there is a point there. Since his campaign hasn’t provided any evidence that he actually took and passed a cognitive test, it’s meaningless. Unfortunately, because Trump has lots of energy for someone his age and can speak almost endlessly, he does not come off to many people as someone who is in cognitive decline. The fact that he speaks in a stream of consciousness often with little connection to reality isn’t apparent to a lot of people.
The debate was a shitshow, and unfortunately, post-debate politics are also a shitshow. Kamala Harris polls poorly, despite having excellent credentials including US senator and AG from CA. If Biden dropped out she has to be the candidate for practical reasons, and the optics of her not being the candidate are terrible.
@just nutha:
So? You’re here at OTB just like the rest of us. We all do other things in addition.
@Andy:
And I think this is why a terrible debate performance has been transformed into a media narrative that he is not fit.
First, there isn’t a lot of footage of him thinking on his feet to compare it to, so people can assume this is representative of his current level.
Second, the New York Times and Washington Post hate him. They resent that he doesn’t give them access.
When he’s done a press conference, he’s been great. Or at least good. He just hasn’t done enough.
I think Hillary Clinton made a similar mistake in 2016 assuming that The NY Times was friendly rather than petulant, entitled, and powerful enough to make “but her emails” a dominant issue.
ETA: Biden needs to do sit down interviews with the NYTimes and WaPo after this.
@Gustopher:
While, more importantly, not making an issue of Trump’s criminality. As Trump’s hometown paper they knew all about it. To some extent, I think they viewed it as old news, not very click-worthy. Much of it was, and still is, alleged or rumored. But that’s what he-said, she-said journalism is all about. Alleging Trump laundered Russian money risks a lawsuit. Repoting that so-and-so said Trump is alleged to have laundered Russian money is safer. Or even that it’s widely rumored. NYT’s been claiming to be the leading news source in the country for a century or more. Surely they know how to play the game.
Hillary was not a great but wasn’t bad candidate either. It seems that that way because Bill and Osama were superior politicians and were just before her. Apart from the litany of things that cost her campaign, the one thing she could have done was better targeting in the rust belt and the whole team gets a demerit there. But if you compare her with other presidential candidates in the recent past she is pretty much in the middle, maybe like Romney who actually ran a decent enough campaign and got more votes than one would have thought.
@steve:
Hell will freeze over before a majority of America white men think any powerful, ambitious woman presidential candidate that’s not working on behalf of the patriarchy is a good campaigner. Till then, the sound of their voices will continue to irritate. Because reasons (coughmommyissuescough).
@CSK: That you guys bite on everything everytime is what makes it so fun for the trolls here.
@Gustopher:
Not the NYT, too big a risk given what petulant vindictive entitled nepo baby prick Sulzerberger is and he controls the paychecks.
Also, I think Biden wants to show the danger of messing with him, FAFO.
@Gustopher:
The Ariana Grande voters have been sold on the idea the NYT has a liberal bias. Good luck persuading them this would be a fair or hostile interview/interviewer.
@Gustopher: On the other hand, I want an extended Cornpop story.
There really was a ‘Corn Pop’