Okay, let's unpack this. Today we are attempting,
I guess you could say, a really deep dive into
a political career that's just massive, one of
the most extensive, and yeah, probably one of
the most paradoxical in modern American history.
We're talking about Joseph Robinette Biden Jr.
It's a huge canvas, isn't it? Absolutely. I mean,
you're looking at a public life that stretches
over five decades, starts way back in Delaware,
municipal government, then boom. 36 years in
the U .S. Senate. 36 years. It's hard to even
wrap your head around that length of service
in one body. And then, of course, eight years
as vice president under Obama. Followed by the
presidency itself. Four years as the 46th president.
Ending up as the oldest person ever to hold that
office. He turned 80 while he was still president.
Which is just unprecedented. The sheer duration,
the range of offices. It's almost unparalleled
in American history. serving continuously for
half a century at that level. Yeah, it really
demands more than just listing dates and titles.
We need to try and understand the person, the
politician navigating all of that. So our mission
today. for you listening is really to cut through
some of the noise, the day -to -day political
commentary, and focus on the substance. What
were the actual policy choices? What was his
personal journey like? We want to pull out those
key legislative moments, the wins, the losses.
Understand the big turning points, both personal
and political, that really shaped him. And maybe
the most fascinating part, dig into the stark
contrast we see. You mean between the policy
outcomes and how people felt about him? Precisely.
Historians are already starting to rank his presidency
pretty favorably in terms of legislative output.
Yet public perception, especially towards the
end, was persistently negative. Driven largely
by economic anxieties, as we'll see. Right. And
that perception gap ultimately undermined his
final years and led to that. really unprecedented
decision to withdraw from the 2024 race. So we're
looking for those connections, those aha moments
that might help explain this incredibly long,
incredibly complex story. OK, so let's start
right at the beginning. The foundation. The roots.
Joe Biden was born November 20th, 1942, Scranton,
Pennsylvania, a Catholic family, mostly Irish
descent. But that image, the middle class Joe
thing. That really comes from the family's early
financial situation, doesn't it? It absolutely
does. That narrative is central to his political
identity. His father, Joseph Sr., had some serious
business setbacks early on. Things got tough
enough that the family actually had to live with
his mom's parents in Scranton for a while. So
it wasn't necessarily poverty, but it was definitely
a step down, a period of instability. Exactly.
Financial strain, maybe a loss of status. They
eventually moved to Delaware, Claymont first,
then Wilmington when Joe Jr. was about 10. He
often talked about seeing his father struggle
to regain his footing. And his father eventually
found success as a used car salesman, right?
Yes, he did. But that earlier period, that feeling
of precariousness, that seems to have left a
really deep impression on Biden. It became the
bedrock of his connection to working class and
middle class voters. Now, looking at his early
life, there's this interesting sort of tension.
He clearly had ambition, leadership qualities,
but his academic record wasn't exactly stellar.
That's a recurring theme, isn't it? At Archmere
Academy. a private Catholic school. He was class
president his junior and senior years. So popular,
a leader. But he himself admitted he was a poor
student. And that pattern kind of continued into
university and law school. It seemed so. He went
to the University of Delaware, then Syracuse
University for Law School, graduating in 1968.
But he was ranked 76th out of a class of 85.
And there's a specific incident from law school
that came back to haunt him later. Yes, a very
significant one for his later career. In his
first year, he failed a course because he plagiarized
five pages from a published law review article
for a paper. Wow, five pages. Yeah. He claimed
it was unintentional, a misunderstanding of citation
rules. The faculty reviewed it, and while they
initially failed him in the course, they later
allowed him to retake it. And that specific failing
grade was eventually struck from his record.
But the fact that it happened. The fact that
it happened became crucial biographical context.
It resurfaced dramatically during his first presidential
run decades later. It feeds into this narrative,
perhaps, of ambition, sometimes outpacing, let's
say, strict adherence to the rules. Before the
Senate, though, he did take his first steps into
actual governing. Right. On the Newcastle County
Council in Delaware, served from 1971 to 1973.
And wasn't his platform surprisingly progressive
for that time and place? It really was. Looking
back, he was actively supporting public housing
initiatives in the suburbs, which is a very hot
button issue then. He also opposed building large
highway projects near Wilmington, arguing they
would harm existing neighborhoods. It showed
a kind of grassroots, almost activist streak
early on. Which then leads us to 1972, the big
Senate race. He was a massive underdog. A complete
long shot. He was challenging J. Caleb Boggs,
a popular two -term Republican incumbent, former
governor, a giant in Delaware politics. Biden
was only 29 when he decided to run. And he had,
what, practically no money? Very little institutional
support, minimal funds. The campaign was famously
a family affair. His sister... Valerie Biden
Owens was his campaign manager. Other family
members pitched in constantly. How did they even
compete? Delaware's small size was actually an
advantage. They could run a very intense retail
politics campaign. Lots of face -to -face interaction,
distributing position papers by hand. It was
energetic, relentless. And his platform, what
was he running on? It was pretty forward -looking
for 72. Environmental protection. strong support
for civil rights, health care access, fairer
taxes, and critically, a clear call for withdrawal
from the Vietnam War. He tapped into the anti
-war sentiment and a desire for change. Even
so, the polls looked grim for a long time. Yeah,
he was trailing by almost 30 points just a few
months out. But he kept pounding the pavement,
and Boggs perhaps ran a slightly complacent campaign.
And the result was... Absolutely stunning. Biden
won by just over 3 ,000 votes, about 50 .5%,
making him at age 30 the seventh youngest person
ever elected to the U .S. Senate. An incredible
victory. The absolute peak of political triumph
for a young man. And then, almost immediately,
the most crushing personal tragedy imaginable.
It's just devastating to think about. Weeks after
the election, December 18, 1972. His wife, Nelia,
and their one -year -old daughter, Naomi. They
were out Christmas shopping. Their station wagon
was hit by a tractor trailer. Nelia and Naomi
were killed instantly. His sons, Beau, who was
three, and Hunter, just two, were in the car
and were seriously injured but survived. The
whiplash from that election high to this unimaginable
low. It's hard to comprehend. It almost broke
him. He was actually sworn into the Senate in
January 1973 at his son's hospital bedside in
Wilmington. He considered not taking the seat
at all, didn't he? He seriously thought about
resigning immediately. He felt he couldn't possibly
be a senator and a single father to two traumatized
young boys. But Senate Majority Leader Mike Mansfield,
a key figure here, talked him out of it. How
did Mansfield convince him? Mansfield basically
told him the Senate needed him. that they would
accommodate his situation, allow him flexibility.
He urged him to give it six months. It was a
crucial intervention. The emotional toll must
have been immense. He's spoken about it since,
about how dark that period was. Very openly,
especially later in life. He wrote about contemplating
suicide, feeling immense anger, questioning his
faith. He said he felt like God had played a
horrible trick on him. That raw grief, that sense
of duty to his surviving sons. It shaped everything
that followed. Including the famous commute.
Yes. The decision not to move his family to Washington,
D .C. Instead, he started commuting daily by
Amtrak train from Wilmington. Over 90 minutes
each way, every day, for his entire Senate career.
That decision kept him rooted in Delaware, rooted
in his family life, in a way most senators aren't.
It absolutely did. It became fundamental to his
political identity, Amtrak Joe. The regular guy
going home every night. And eventually he did
find personal happiness again. He did. He met
Jill Tracy Jacobs, a teacher, in 1975 on a blind
date set up by his brother. They married in 1977.
He credits her enormously with helping him rebuild
his life and renewing his passion for politics.
They had a daughter together, Ashley. Ashley
Biden, born in 1981. She became a social worker
and activist. And of course, his sons, Beau and
Hunter, remain central to his life. Beau followed
him into public service, becoming Delaware's
attorney general. Tragically, Beau also died
young from brain cancer in 2015, another profound
loss. A devastating blow, particularly as Beau
was seen by many as the inheritor of his father's
political mantle. And Hunter, well... Hunter's
life and business dealings became much more complicated
and eventually a major political issue during
his father's presidency. Yes, Hunter's career
as a lobbyist, consultant, advisor, particularly
his work in Ukraine and China, created significant
political vulnerabilities later on. But that
initial tragedy, the loss of Naley and Naomi
and the focus on raising Beau and Hunter, that's
really the crucible where the Joe Biden we know
was forged. OK, so let's move into those long
Senate years. 36 years, six reelections. That
kind of longevity gives you enormous influence.
Huge influence. He eventually chaired powerful
committees, the Judiciary Committee, the Foreign
Relations Committee. He was a major player. When
you look back at that legislative record, what
stands out, especially on the domestic side?
Well, you have to talk about crime policy. That
was a major focus for him, particularly in the
80s and 90s. He was... deeply involved in two
landmark crime bills. The 1984 Act first. Right.
The Comprehensive Crime Control Act of 1984.
That was significant in itself, part of the Reagan
era focus on law and order. But the really big
one, the one that's debated constantly now, is
the 1994 Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement
Act. He was the chairman of the Judiciary Committee
then, right? He really drove that bill. He was
the architect. It was a massive piece of legislation.
It included... Things many Democrats supported,
like the federal assault weapons ban. But it
also contained provisions that significantly
contributed to the era of mass incarceration.
Things like three strikes, mandatory life sentences,
huge funding increases for police and prisons.
It really doubled down on punitive measures.
And that legacy became incredibly controversial
over time. Hugely controversial. Critics, especially
on the left, point to the 1994 bill as a key
driver of racial disparities in the justice system
and the explosion of the U .S. prison population.
It became a real political liability for him
later. Did he ever acknowledge those criticisms?
Yes, eventually he did, particularly during the
2020 campaign and his presidency. He expressed
regret, saying that while the intentions behind
parts of the bill, like community policing, were
good, other parts went too far. and had damaging
unintended consequences. He specifically said
some aspects were a mistake. It shows maybe a
capacity to evolve on an issue, albeit slowly.
Perhaps, or at least recognize the political
necessity of addressing that legacy. On a more
positive note, in terms of social policy, what
did he champion? His signature achievement, the
one he consistently called his proudest legislative
accomplishment, was the Violence Against Women
Act, or VABAW. also passed in 1994 as part of
that crime bill, wasn't it? It was initially
included in the crime bill package. Via Boba
Way fundamentally changed the way domestic violence
and sexual assault were treated under federal
law. It provided funding for shelters, victim
services, training for law enforcement, and created
new legal avenues for victims. It was groundbreaking.
So a complex picture on domestic... policy, champion
of VIABOA, but also architect of a crime bill
with a difficult legacy. Very much so. And it
gets even more complex when you look at issues
where he seemed to break with his party's base.
You're thinking of the bankruptcy bill. Exactly.
The 2005 Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention and Consumer
Protection Act. This is a really crucial piece
of his record for understanding his political
positioning and, frankly, his vulnerabilities.
What did that bill do? In simple terms, it made
it much, much harder for individuals struggling
with debt to file for Chapter 7 bankruptcy. That's
the kind that wipes out most unsecured debts
like credit card debt or medical bills. So it
pushed people towards Chapter 13 instead. Right,
which requires them to enter into a repayment
plan over several years. It was a huge win for
the credit card industry and other lenders. And
Biden was a key supporter. He was not just a
supporter. He was a vocal advocate for it and
one of only 18 Democrats in the Senate to vote
for it. It was fiercely opposed by almost all
other leading Democrats, consumer protection
groups, women's groups worried about divorced
women. The opposition was intense. Why did he
back it so strongly? This seems counter to his
middle class Joe persona. This is where his Delaware
roots become absolutely critical. Delaware, as
you know, is a major hub for the financial services
industry, particularly credit card companies.
MBNA, which was then one of the largest credit
card issuers in the world, was headquartered
there and was one of Delaware's biggest employers.
And Biden had ties to MBNA. Strong ties. They
were a major source of campaign contributions
over the years. His son, Hunter Biden, also worked
for MB &A for a period. Critics hammered him
relentlessly, arguing he was putting the interests
of his corporate constituents in Delaware ahead
of struggling families nationwide. That vote
definitely stuck to him. Oh, absolutely. It was
used against him in the 2008 primaries, the 2020
primaries. It fed the narrative that despite
the working class image, he was perhaps too cozy
with corporate interests. Let's pivot to foreign
policy during his Senate years. This became his
real area of expertise, right? Especially as
chair of foreign relations. Yes. He increasingly
focused on foreign policy and saw himself as
a major voice on the world stage. His stance
evolved over time, though. How so? He voted against
authorizing the first Gulf War in 1991. He did.
He argued at the time for giving sanctions more
time to work. But his most defining moments in
the 90s came in relation to the Balkans. The
wars in Bosnia and Kosovo. Exactly. He became
a very forceful advocate for intervention. He
pushed hard for the lift and strike policy, lifting
the arms embargo on Bosnian Muslims and using
NATO air power against the Serbs. He even met
face to face with Serbian leader Slobod Milisejevic,
apparently delivering a very blunt message. And
he supported the NATO bombing campaign in Kosovo
in 1999. Very strongly. In fact, he later called
his role in shaping U .S. policy towards the
Balkans his proudest moment in public life related
to foreign policy. He felt he had pushed the
U .S. to act morally against genocide. But then
came the post 9 -11 era, the war on terror. That
seems like a more complicated chapter for him.
Much more complicated. He's an early and strong
supporter of the war in Afghanistan after the
9 -11 attacks. His quote was basically, whatever
it takes, we should do it. No hesitation there.
Iraq was different. Iraq was very different and
ultimately much more damaging to his reputation.
As chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee
in 2002, he played a really central role in the
lead up to the war. He held hearings. He presided
over the crucial hearings on Saddam Hussein's
alleged weapons of mass destruction. Critics
later pointed out that these hearings gave a
prominent platform to pro -war voices and administration
officials, while perhaps marginalizing dissenting
experts who questioned the intelligence. And
crucially, he voted for the war authorization.
Yes. In October 2002, he voted in favor of the
authorization for use of military force against
Iraq. That vote would follow him for years. Did
he stand by it? Not indefinitely. By 2005, as
the insurgency raged and the WMND rationale collapsed,
he publicly called his vote a mistake. He said
he had voted based on intelligence presented
to him, believing the goal was to allow weapons
inspectors back in, not necessarily immediate
invasion. But calling it a mistake didn't stop
him from supporting funding for the war, did
it? No. And that was the difficult line he had
to walk. He continued to vote for appropriations
to support the troops and the ongoing occupation,
even while criticizing the war's strategy and
execution. It made his position look inconsistent
to some. He did eventually propose alternative
strategies, though. Yes. By 2006 -2007, he was
actively opposing President Bush's troop surge
strategy. And he controversially proposed a plan
to effectively partition Iraq into three autonomous
regions based on ethnicity, Shia, Sunni, and
Kurd, linked by a weak federal government. That
idea didn't really go anywhere, did it? It passed
the Senate as a non -binding resolution, but
it lacked support from the Bush administration
and, more importantly, from Iraqi leaders themselves.
It was seen as unworkable. So his foreign policy
record, while extensive, shows both conviction,
like in the Balkans, and significant missteps
and course corrections, like on Iraq. OK, here's
where it gets really interesting, as you say,
connecting that long Senate career and foreign
policy heft to his presidential ambitions. His
first attempt was in 1988. And it was. Let's
just say it ended quickly and badly. A real flame
out. What happened? He seemed like a strong candidate
initially. Young, charismatic, chair of the Judiciary
Committee. He did. He entered the race in June
1987 with a lot of buzz. But the campaign almost
immediately ran into trouble over messaging and,
more significantly, biography. The killer blow
came in September 1987. The plagiarism issue
resurfaced. Big time. He was caught lifting passages.
without attribution, from a speech by Neil Kinnock,
who was then the leader of the British Labour
Party. Kinnock's speech was very personal, very
powerful about his family background. Exactly,
about being the first Kinnock in a thousand generations
to go to university. Biden used very similar
phrasing and themes in his own closing remarks
at debates and speeches, presenting Kinnock's
life story almost as his own. And it wasn't just
Kinnick, right? No. Once the Kinnick story broke,
reporters dug deeper and found he had also borrowed
lines from Robert F. Kennedy and Hubert Humphrey
without crediting them. And then, crucially,
the old law school plagiarism incident from Syracuse
resurfaced in the news. That's a perfect storm.
It got worse. The intense media scrutiny also
uncovered a pattern of Biden making false or
significantly exaggerated claims about his academic
record and his past activism. What kind of claims?
Things like saying he'd earned three undergraduate
degrees here and won, that he attended law school
on a full scholarship. He received a partial
needs -based grant. That he graduated in the
top half of his law class. He graduated near
the bottom. And that he had marched in the civil
rights movement. There's no evidence he actively
marched, though he was involved in other ways,
like working at a public pool in a black neighborhood.
So the combination of plagiarism and these biographical
embellishments. It just destroyed his credibility
at that moment. The narrative became about authenticity
or the lack thereof. He withdrew from the race
on September 23, 1987, just three months after
entering. It was a humiliating setback. A tough
lesson learned about the national spotlight.
A very tough lesson about how your entire past
becomes fair game. Fast forward two decades,
he tries again in 2008. He does. This time he's
running explicitly on his experience, particularly
foreign policy, positioning himself as the seasoned
statesman compared to younger rivals like Barack
Obama and Hillary Clinton. How did that run go?
Not much better, frankly, in terms of results.
He just couldn't gain traction against the excitement
surrounding Obama or the established network
of Clinton. He finished a distant fifth in the
Iowa caucuses with less than 1 % of the delegates
and dropped out shortly after. Another failed
presidential bid. But this one had a silver lining.
A massive silver lining. Because that very experience
and perceived gravitas that failed to win him
votes were exactly what Barack Obama was looking
for in a running mate. It seems counterintuitive,
though. They weren't particularly close, were
they? There was even some reported friction.
Reports suggest Biden might have resented Obama's
incredibly rapid rise, while Obama perhaps found
Biden a bit long -winded or prone to gaffes.
It wasn't a natural friendship initially. The
choice was highly strategic, almost transactional.
Obama needed the foreign policy credibility.
Exactly. Obama was a first -term senator. Biden
had chaired the Foreign Relations Committee for
years, traveled the world, knew countless leaders.
He provided ballast, experienced national security
credentials. Plus, Biden still had that connection
to white working class voters, particularly in
states like Pennsylvania and Ohio, that Obama
hoped to win. So a marriage of convenience that
worked out politically. It worked out brilliantly
politically. And interestingly, by all accounts,
they developed a genuinely close personal relationship
during their eight years in the White House.
The initial strategic calculation evolved into
real affection and trust, partly helped, apparently,
by the fact their daughters attended the same
school. So let's move into that vice presidency,
2009 to 2017. How did Biden define his role?
He wasn't just a ceremonial figurehead. No, definitely
not. He famously said his goal was often to be
the last man in the room with the president offering
his candid advice. He saw himself as a contrarian
at times, someone who could challenge prevailing
opinions within the administration to ensure
Obama heard all sides of an argument. Did that
play out in major policy debates? It certainly
did, particularly regarding Afghanistan early
on. There was a big internal debate about sending
more troops to the surge. Biden argued strongly
against a large troop increase. favoring a more
limited counterterrorism approach focused on
al -Qaeda. But he lost that argument initially,
didn't he? He did. Secretary of State Hillary
Clinton and the military leadership favor the
surge, and Obama ultimately went with that plan,
sending about 21 ,000 additional troops. However,
Biden's skepticism lingered, and his perspective
reportedly gained more weight later as Obama
grew disillusioned with the Afghanistan strategy.
So his contrarian view eventually had influence,
even if delayed. It seems so. He also took the
lead on Iraq policy, managing the withdrawal
of U .S. troops by the end of 2011, drawing on
his deep relationships in the region. Domestically,
he had a major role in the Recovery Act, the
stimulus package. Yes. Obama put him in charge
of overseeing the implementation of the massive
infrastructure spending within the American Recovery
and Reinvestment Act. His job was to prevent
waste and fraud. How'd it go? By his own account,
and reports at the time, quite well. He held
regular meetings, tracked projects meticulously,
and his team reported a fraud rate of less than
1%, which for a program that vast was considered
a significant achievement in effective oversight.
Of course, the public often remembers the VP
years for, well, for Biden being Biden. Right.
The unscripted moments. Ah, yes, the gaffes,
though sometimes they were more like revealing
moments of authenticity. The most famous, perhaps,
was the hot mic moment at the Affordable Care
Act signing ceremony in 2010. Leaning into Obama
and whispering. This is a big fucking deal, which,
you know, perfectly captured the relief and significance
many Democrats felt at finally passing major
health care reform. It became legendary. But
another unscripted moment had arguably much bigger
policy consequences, didn't it, on same -sex
marriage? Absolutely. That was in May 2012 during
an interview on Meet the Press. He was asked
about his views on same -sex marriage, and he
just came out and said, I am absolutely comfortable
with the fact that men marrying men, women marrying
women, and heterosexual men and women marrying
another are entitled to the same exact rights.
And this was before Obama had officially endorsed
it. Yes. The official White House position at
the time was that Obama's views were evolving.
Biden's statement was made without administration
clearance, apparently. It put immediate, intense
pressure on Obama. Forced his hand, essentially.
Many believe so. Just three days later, President
Obama publicly announced his personal support
for same -sex marriage. Biden's off -the -cuff
remark effectively accelerated the timeline on
a major civil rights issue. He also played a
key role in some tough legislative negotiations
using those Senate relationships. Definitely.
He was central to negotiating the 2010 tax cut
compromise with Senate Republican Leader Mitch
McConnell during the lame duck session. That
deal extended the Bush -Hare tax cuts but also
included unemployment benefit extensions Democrats
wanted. He prided himself on being able to cut
deals across the aisle. But that reputation sometimes
worked against him within his own party. It did.
Some Democrats felt he gave away too much in
those negotiations. That perception led to him
being somewhat sidelined during the high stakes
debt ceiling negotiations in 2011 and again during
the 2013 government shutdown talks. Party leaders
apparently worried he was too eager to compromise
with Republicans. So a VP who was influential,
sometimes controversial, often unscripted, but
deeply involved in policy. That sums it up well.
A very active and consequential vice president.
office in 2017 what did he do did he signal a
potential 2020 run early on not immediately He
and Jill Biden focused on other things initially.
They made a significant amount of money through
speaking fees and book deals. His memoir, Promise
Me Dad About Beau's Illness and Death, was a
bestseller. They earned over $15 million between
2017 and 2019. A substantial income spike after
decades of public service salaries. Quite substantial.
He also took up academic affiliations, becoming
an honorary professor at the University of Pennsylvania
and launching the Penn Biden Center for Diplomacy
and Global Engagement. It kept him involved in
policy circles. But the pull towards 2020 must
have been strong, especially with Trump in the
White House. It seems the primary motivation
was, as he framed it, a sense of duty. He launched
his campaign in April 2019, explicitly stating
he felt compelled to run because he believed
President Trump posed a fundamental threat to
the nation's values and standing in the world.
He wasn't the only Democrat running, though.
It was a crowded field. What made him the frontrunner?
Initially, it was name recognition and the Obama
connection. But his most durable advantage, the
one that carried him through, was perceived electability.
Poll after poll showed him performing best against
Trump in hypothetical matchups. And Democratic
primary voters were laser -focused on beating
Trump. Overwhelmingly. So even when younger,
perhaps more exciting candidates challenged him,
Biden's perceived strength against Trump kept
him popular, especially among moderate and older
Democrats, and crucially, Black voters. That
campaign wasn't smooth sailing, though. The Ukraine
issue blew up early. Yes. The whole situation
involving the Trump administration pressuring
Ukraine's President Zelensky to announce investigations
into Joe Biden and his son Hunter became a dominant
storyline. Trump wanted investigations into Hunter's
role on the board of Burisma, a Ukrainian energy
company, and this debunked conspiracy theory
about Joe Biden forcing out a prosecutor to protect
his son. Right. The allegation was that Biden
misused his power as VP. Multiple investigations
and journalistic accounts found no evidence of
wrongdoing by Joe Biden. The prosecutor he pushed
to oust was widely seen as corrupt by the U .S.,
the EU, and international bodies. But the pressure
campaign itself was the issue. Exactly. The fact
that President Trump appeared to be leveraging
U .S. foreign policy and military aid to damage
a political opponent led directly to the House
of Representatives impeaching Trump for abuse
of power and obstruction of Congress in December
2019. So Biden's family life, specifically Hunter's
business dealings, became central to the political
fight even before he won the nomination. Absolutely.
It foreshadowed the attacks he would face constantly.
Despite that, and despite some really poor showings
in the first couple of primaries. Iowa and New
Hampshire were disasters for him. He finished
fourth and fifth, respectively. It looked like
his campaign might collapse, just like in 88
and 08. What turned it around? South Carolina,
and specifically the overwhelming support of
black voters there, galvanized by a key endorsement
from Representative Jim Clyburn. Biden won South
Carolina decisively. And that momentum was unstoppable.
It created a wave. She went on to dominate Super
Tuesday, winning 10 out of 14 states. His main
rivals quickly dropped out and endorsed him.
He effectively secured the nomination by April
2020. He framed himself perfectly for that moment,
saying, I view myself as a bridge. not as anything
else. A bridge to the next generation. And his
VP pick reflected that. Very much so. Choosing
Kamala Harris, then a U .S. senator from California,
was historic. She was the first African -American
woman and the first South Asian -American person
on a major party's presidential ticket. It fulfilled
his promise to have a diverse administration
and signaled a transition in leadership. Okay,
so on to the presidency itself. January 2021.
Inaugurated at 78, the oldest ever, second Catholic
president, first from Delaware. What was the
atmosphere like? It was tense and very unusual.
Because of the ongoing COVID -19 pandemic, the
crowds were extremely limited. And because of
the January 6th attack on the Capitol just two
weeks earlier, security was incredibly tight
throughout Washington, D .C. It was a very muted,
almost somber affair compared to typical inaugurations.
What were his first moves in office? Setting
the tone. He signed a flurry of executive orders
on day one, aimed largely at reversing Trump
administration policies. He rejoined the Paris
Agreement on climate change, stopped the U .S.
withdrawal from the World Health Organization,
revoked the permit for the Keystone XL oil pipeline,
and ended the declared national emergency at
the U .S.-Mexico border. A clear signal of a
different direction, especially on climate and
international cooperation. Absolutely. A sharp
pivot. Domestically, the first couple of years
were marked by some major legislative action.
The Democratic Party controlled the House and
narrowly the Senate. Right. They had the narrowest
possible Senate majority, 50 -50, with Vice President
Harris breaking ties. But they managed to push
through three really significant pieces of legislation,
what some call the legislative trifecta. First
up was the COVID relief package. Yes, the American
Rescue Plan Act, ARP, signed in March 2021. A
massive $1 .9 trillion bill designed to address
the ongoing economic and health crises from the
pandemic. What was in it? Direct stimulus payments
to most Americans, extended federal unemployment
benefits, substantial funding for schools to
reopen safely, money for COVID testing and vaccine
distribution, aid to state and local governments.
It was a huge injection of federal funds. Aimed
at immediate relief and recovery. Exactly. Short
-term boost. Then came the infrastructure bill.
The Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act, AIJA.
This one was different because it was genuinely
bipartisan. Passed later in 2021. How much money
and what did it target? About $1 .2 trillion
in total, with around $550 billion in new spending.
It focused on traditional infrastructure roads,
bridges, public transit, water pipes, broadband
internet expansion, upgrading the electrical
grid, electric vehicle charging stations, things
both parties generally agreed needed investment.
Getting significant Republican support for that
was seen as a major win for Biden's approach.
It absolutely was. It showed he could still work
across the aisle on big issues, fulfilling a
key campaign promise. And the third big one,
arguably the most complex and maybe most impactful
long term, was the Inflation Reduction Act, IRA.
Right. Passed in the summer of 2022. This was
essentially a scaled back and repurposed version
of his original, much larger build back better
plan, which had failed to pass the Senate due
to opposition from moderate Democrats like Joe
Biden. Manchin and Kyrsten Sinema. How did they
get this version through? They used the budget
reconciliation process, which requires only a
simple majority in the Senate bypassing a potential
Republican filibuster. It passed strictly along
Cardi Lyon's 51 -50, with VP Harris casting the
tie -breaking vote. What were the main components
of the IRA? It had three main pillars. First,
significant investments in energy security and
climate change, about $370 billion. Second, allowing
Medicare to negotiate the prices of some high
-cost prescription drugs for the first time and
extending ACA subsidies. Third, it aimed to reduce
the federal deficit, partly through a new minimum
tax on large corporations. The climate provisions
were really substantial, weren't they? Hugely
substantial. Tax credits for electric vehicles,
incentives for renewable energy production like
solar and wind, funding for energy efficiency
upgrades, support for domestic manufacturing
of clean energy technology. Yeah. Analysts projected
it would be the most significant climate legislation
ever passed in the U .S. What kind of impact
was it expected to have on emissions? Various
models suggested it could help the U .S. cut
its greenhouse gas emissions by somewhere between
31 percent and 44 percent below 2005 levels by
the year 2030. a really major step toward meeting
international climate goals. So ARP for immediate
relief, IIJA for bipartisan infrastructure, IRA
for climate and health care, a pretty productive
legislative run. Objectively, yes, especially
given the razor -thin margins in Congress. Historians
will likely look back on it as a period of significant
legislative output. Which brings us back to that
paradox. All this legislation passed, yet public
approval remained low. Why? What was happening
with the economy overall? The data painted a
confusing picture. On one hand, you had really
strong indicators. GDP growth in 2021 was 5 .9%,
the fastest in nearly four decades. Job growth
was strong too, right? Unemployment fell sharply?
Very sharply. The unemployment rate dropped from
over 6 % when he took office to a 53 -year low
of 3 .4 % by early 2023. Millions of jobs were
created. Household wealth also increased significantly.
By traditional metrics, the economy looked quite
robust. But that's not what people felt. No.
Because the dominant economic story, the one
that impacted everyone's daily lives, was inflation.
It really took off in 2021 and 2022. It soared.
Year -over -year inflation peaked at 9 .1 % in
June 2022, a level not seen since the early 1980s.
Prices for gas, groceries, housing, everything
seemed to be going up rapidly. And even though
the inflation rate eventually came down significantly?
It did. It fell to around 3 % by the end of his
term. But the cumulative effect of that price
surge was huge. The overall consumer price index
rose about 21 .3 % during his four years in office.
And critically, wages didn't quite keep up with
that cumulative rise for many people. That's
the key. Average wage growth was around 19 %
over the same period. So while wages were rising
on paper, many families felt like their purchasing
power was eroding because prices had risen even
faster. That feeling of falling behind or just
struggling to afford basics overshadowed the
good news about jobs. And that frustration directly
impacted his approval ratings. Overwhelmingly,
poll after poll showed inflation and the cost
of living were the top concerns for voters and
the primary reason cited for dissatisfaction
with his presidency. He simply couldn't shake
the perception that the economy was bad for ordinary
people, despite the positive macroeconomic data.
Let's touch on a few other domestic areas. The
judiciary. A major focus for him in an area where
he arguably had a huge lasting impact. His most
high profile appointment, of course, was Katonji
Brown Jackson to the Supreme Court. The first
black woman to serve on the court. Historic.
But beyond that, his administration prioritized
diversity across the entire federal bench to
an unprecedented degree. How many judges did
he appoint overall? In just one term. He appointed
235 federal judges. That's more than any president
in their first term in the last 50 years. And
the diversity numbers were striking. About 63
percent of his appointees were women and 60 percent
were non -white. That fundamentally reshapes
the judiciary for decades to come. What about
labor issues? He often called himself the most
pro -union president. He definitely leaned into
that identity. He took the unprecedented step
in 2023 of actually joining striking United Auto
Workers members on a picket line in Michigan,
the first sitting president ever to do so. But
he also intervened to stop a potentially crippling
railroad strike in 2022, didn't he? He did. Congress
passed legislation forcing railroad workers to
accept a contract they had rejected, averting
a strike that economists warned could devastate
the supply chain. So a bit of a balancing act
there between supporting unions and protecting
the broader economy. Fiscal issues, debt ceiling,
student loans. He signed the Fiscal Responsibility
Act of 2023, a bipartisan deal negotiated with
House Speaker Kevin McCarthy to raise the debt
ceiling and averts a potentially catastrophic
default. It included some standing caps. On student
loans, he pursued ambitious forgiveness plans.
But those faced major hurdles. Huge legal challenges.
His initial plan for broad student loan forgiveness
was struck down by the Supreme Court. Subsequent
efforts were more targeted, but still faced opposition
and criticism over their cost, estimated at over
half a trillion dollars, and questions of fairness.
It was a key promise, especially to younger voters,
that proved very difficult to deliver on fully.
Okay, shifting to the world stage, foreign policy
under Biden was dominated by some major crises.
Absolutely. It felt like one thing after another.
From the end of America's longest war to the
return of large -scale conflict in Europe and
renewed tensions in the Middle East and with
China. Let's start with Afghanistan, the withdrawal
in August 2021. That was arguably the lowest
point of his first year in office, certainly
in foreign policy terms. He followed through
on the agreement negotiated by the Trump administration
to withdraw all U .S. troops, though he extended
the deadline slightly. What was his justification
for pulling out completely? His core argument
was that the U .S. mission had been accomplished
years ago, degrading al -Taeda, and that staying
longer wouldn't change the outcome. He famously
said American troops shouldn't be dying in a
war, that Afghan forces weren't willing to fight
for themselves. He wanted to end the forever
war. But the execution was widely seen as chaotic,
even disastrous. The speed of the Taliban takeover
stunned everyone, including the administration.
Biden himself admitted the collapse unfolded
more quickly than we had anticipated. The scenes
at the Kabul airport with desperate Afghans trying
to flee were heartbreaking and politically damaging.
There was immense criticism from both parties,
allies. Intense criticism over the planning and
execution. However, the administration also pointed
to the massive airlift operation evacuating over
120 ,000 people, Americans, allies, vulnerable
Afghans, in a very short time under dangerous
conditions as an extraordinary success in logistical
terms. But the image of chaos and abandonment
lingered. Then just a few months later, Russia
invaded Ukraine, February 2022. How did the administration
respond? Swiftly and strongly, in coordination
with allies. They imposed unprecedented economic
sanctions on Russia, targeting banks, oligarchs,
energy exports. They also authorized huge amounts
of military and financial aid to Ukraine. How
much aid are we talking about? Over the course
of the war, during his term, Congress approved
roughly $113 billion in total assistance for
Ukraine. Biden consistently rallied international
support for Kyiv and framed the conflict as a
global struggle between democracy and autocracy,
directly blaming Putin for the resulting energy
and food price shocks. But there was a clear
limit to U .S. involvement, wasn't there? A line
they wouldn't cross. Yes, a very deliberate line.
Biden consistently refused Ukrainian requests
to use longer range American weapons to strike
targets deep inside Russian territory. Why that
restriction? The stated reason was fear of escalation,
avoiding actions that could provoke a direct
military conflict between NATO and nuclear -armed
Russia. They wanted to support Ukraine's defense
without triggering World War III. He did eventually
grant a limited exception for using some weapons
for counterfire purposes just across the border
near Kharkiv in 2024, but the general prohibition
on deep strikes remained. Let's talk about China.
How did relations evolve? The relationship became
defined by competition, even confrontation. Biden
framed China as the United States' most serious
competitor and organized alliances to counter
its influence. But the Yorkies Pact was a big
part of that. A very big part. The security agreement
between Australia, the U .K. and the U .S. focused
on providing Australia with nuclear -powered
submarine technology was clearly aimed at countering
China's military buildup in the Indo -Pacific.
And Taiwan remained a major flashpoint. Biden
made some comments that seemed to shift U .S.
policy. He did, repeatedly. On several occasions,
he stated unequivocally that the U .S. would
defend Taiwan militarily if China invaded. These
statements went beyond the longstanding U .S.
policy of strategic ambiguity. And the White
House had to walk those comments back. Each time,
yes. Administration officials would clarify that
U .S. policy hadn't officially changed. It created
confusion and suggested a possible gap between
the president's personal views and established
diplomatic doctrine. Were there other concrete
actions taken towards China? Yes. The administration
ordered the shootdown of a suspected Chinese
surveillance balloon that flew across the U .S.
in February 2023. In 2024, Biden significantly
increased tariffs on various Chinese goods, like
electric vehicles, solar panels, steel, and batteries,
citing unfair trade practices. And he signed
legislation aimed at forcing the divestiture
or ban of the popular app TikTok due to concerns
about its Chinese ownership. So a much more confrontational
stance than perhaps seen under Obama. Definitely
more overtly competitive and confrontational,
continuing and expanding on some trends that
began under Trump, but embedding them within
a strategy of strengthening alliances. Finally,
the conflict in the Middle East. The Gaza War,
starting in late 2023. A major crisis that consumed
a huge amount of the administration's attention
in its final year and a half. After the Hamas
attack on Israel on October 7th, 2023, Biden
offered immediate ironclad support for Israel's
right to defend itself. He condemned Hamas unequivocally.
Yes, as a terrorist organization and deployed
U .S. naval assets to the region as a deterrent.
However, as Israel's military response in Gaza
intensified, leading to a catastrophic humanitarian
crisis and vast numbers of Palestinian civilian
casualties, the administration faced growing
pressure. Pressure from allies, human rights
groups, and within the Democratic Party itself.
Intense pressure to take a tougher line with
Israel, condition military aid, and push harder
for a ceasefire in humanitarian access. How did
Biden navigate that? It was a very difficult
tightrope walk. He publicly and privately urged
Israel to minimize civilian harm and allow more
aid into Gaza, but he resisted calls for conditioning
aid or demanding an immediate permanent ceasefire.
He supported temporary humanitarian pauses. The
administration did try to facilitate aid delivery
directly, didn't they? Yes. They initiated large
-scale airdrops of food and supplies into Gaza
and undertook a major military project to build
a temporary pier off the coast to deliver aid
by sea. However, aid organizations consistently
said these efforts, while welcome, were far from
sufficient given the scale of the need and the
difficulties of distribution inside Gaza. Did
the situation resolve before he left office?
In the very final week of his presidency, his
administration strongly backed a multi -phase
ceasefire proposal that included hostage releases
and a surge in aid. Hamas reportedly accepted
the terms of the initial phase just days before
the end of Biden's term, bringing a fragile pause
to the fighting. So a presidency bookended by
foreign policy crises. Ukraine and Gaza dominating
the middle and end. It really underscored the
volatile international landscape he inherited
and navigated. Throughout all this, domestic
and foreign, there was the constant underlying
issue of his age. He was unavoidable. As the
oldest president ever, his health, stamina, and
cognitive fitness were under constant scrutiny,
amplified by political opponents and media coverage
of every verbal slip or unsteady moment. And
that scrutiny intensified significantly after
the report by special counsel Robert Herr. Yes.
The Herr report investigated Biden's handling
of classified documents after his vice presidency.
While Herr concluded that criminal charges were
not warranted, the report included some highly
damaging, politically charged descriptions of
the president's memory. What specifically did
Herr write? He described Biden as a sympathetic,
well -meaning, elderly man with a poor memory.
He noted instances during interviews where Biden
apparently couldn't recall key dates, like when
his term as vice president began or ended or
even, most painfully, the year his son Beau died.
Those details were explosive. They fueled the
narrative about his cognitive decline, even though
allies pushed back strongly, saying the comments
were unnecessary and politically motivated. But
the damage was done. It fed directly into concerns
leading up to the 2024 election cycle. And those
concerns crystallized during the first presidential
debate against Trump in June 2024. That debate
performance was widely seen as a disaster for
Biden. He sounded hoarse, paused frequently and
delivered several halting, meandering and sometimes
confusing answers. The reaction was immediate
and brutal. Instantaneous panic among Democrats.
pundits, donors, elected officials. The consensus
formed rapidly that the performance was disqualifying,
that he simply couldn't sustain the rigors of
another campaign. The pressure on him to step
aside must have been immense. Unbearable. Calls
for him to withdraw grew louder by the day. After
weeks of intense speculation and behind -the
-scenes maneuvering, he finally announced his
decision. On July 21, 2024, he withdrew from
the presidential race. Yes, becoming the first
eligible incumbent president not to seek re -election
since Lyndon Johnson in 1968. He endorsed Vice
President Kamala Harris to lead the ticket. It
was a stunning, unprecedented end to his re -election
bid, driven almost entirely by concerns about
his age and fitness, crystallized by that debate
performance. Even after withdrawing, his final
months in office contained some really significant,
even historic actions, particularly regarding
pardons. He used the pardon power quite extensively
throughout his term, actually. More individual
pardons and commutations than any president in
decades, including those mass pardons for people
convicted of simple federal marijuana possession.
Those were generally well received by reform
advocates, but the later pardons were far more
controversial. Extremely controversial. starting
with the pardon for his son, Hunter Biden, on
December 1st, 2024. This was after Hunter had
been convicted on federal gun charges and was
facing tax charges. Yes, but the pardon went
far beyond those specific cases. It was a full
and unconditional pardon covering all potential
federal offenses Hunter might have committed
between 2014 and December 1st, 2024. All potential
offenses. That sounds incredibly broad. It was
described as unprecedented in its scope by legal
analysts. It seemed clearly designed to preemptively
shield Hunter from any further federal investigations
or charges, possibly related to his overseas
business dealings or accusations of trading on
the family name, especially with a new administration
coming in. And this was despite Biden previously
promising he wouldn't pardon his son. Yes, he
repeatedly said he wouldn't interfere. The sweeping
nature of the pardon, offering protection for
unknown potential crimes, drew widespread criticism
as an abuse of the pardon power for personal
reasons. And it didn't stop there. His very last
day in office, January 20, 2025. He issued another
wave of preemptive pardons, this time covering
several family members, including his brothers
James and Francis, his sister Valerie, and their
spouses, as well as key political figures associated
with his administration or investigations into
the previous one. Who was included in that group?
Figures like Dr. Anthony Fauci, former chairman
of the Joint Chiefs Mark Milley, and several
individuals involved with the House January 6th
committee. What was the justification given for
pardoning people who hadn't even been charged
with, let alone convicted of, any crimes? President
Biden explicitly stated it was necessary because
of his concern about baseless and politically
motivated investigations that he anticipated
from the incoming Trump administration. He framed
it as protecting these individuals from political
retribution. So using the pardon power as a shield
against perceived political weaponization of
the justice system by his successor. That's exactly
how it was interpreted. A final dramatic act
using absolute presidential power to insulate
his family and allies from future legal jeopardy,
signaling a deep distrust in the political neutrality
of the system he was leaving behind. How then
do we assess his presidency overall? The final
verdict seems split. Very much so. If you look
at public opinion polls, his presidency ended
with low approval ratings. His average approval
in Gallup polling was around 42 .2 percent, the
second lowest for any president since World War
II, only slightly higher than Donald Trump's
average. And that was driven mainly by? Primarily
by public frustration over inflation and the
cost of living. That economic anxiety just seemed
to swamp everything else in the public's perception.
But there's a contrasting view emerging already.
Yes, among historians and political scientists.
Early rankings are placing his administration
much more favorably, often in the top quartile
or even higher. They point to the significant
legislative achievements, the ARP, the infrastructure
bill, the IRA's climate impact, the judicial
appointments, the rebuilding of alliances. It
sounds a lot like the comparison people make
to Jimmy Carter. It's become a very common comparison.
A one -term Democrat. seen as decent and intelligent,
who achieved significant policy successes, like
Carter's human rights focus or environmental
action, but was ultimately defined in the public
eye by economic struggles, particularly inflation,
leading to a loss of public confidence. It's
also worth remembering some policy nuances that
get lost in the main narratives, like on the
environment. That's a great example. While the
IRA was a huge climate bill, his administration
also oversaw record levels of domestic oil production
in late 2023. And alongside actions like rejoining
Paris, he also protected a massive amount of
land and ocean, some 674 million acres through
conservation measures. The reality was complex.
So to try and synthesize this immense career.
We see extraordinary resilience bouncing back
from personal tragedy and political setbacks.
We see real legislative effectiveness, especially
during his presidency. Absolutely. The way the
infrastructure act, the IRA, those are substantial
lasting policy wins. Yet that effectiveness never
translated into sustained public approval. The
presidency was ultimately overshadowed by economic
frustration and these deeply personal challenges
related to his aides and his family, particularly
Hunter. It's a story of achieving significant
policy goals while failing, ultimately, to win
the battle for public perception in real time.
The historical assessment might be kind, but
the contemporary judgment was quite harsh. Which
brings us to our final thought for you, the listener.
We've traced this incredibly long public life,
deeply marked by personal loss and family ties.
Now, consider the very end, those final sweeping
pardons. They weren't just for specific crimes
committed, but preemptively covered potential
future charges against family, allies, key administration
figures. Pardons issued explicitly to shield
them from anticipated investigations by the next
administration. How does that unprecedented act
reshape our understanding of a presidential legacy
in this era of hyperpartisanship and political
targeting? What does it reveal about the perceived
fragility of the political system itself when
an outgoing president feels compelled to deploy
the ultimate power of clemency, not just for
past actions, but as a defensive shield against
the future actions of his successor? It really
forces us to question if the lines between law
and politics have blurred beyond recognition.