Excellently articulated. Perhaps there's a simple explanation for all of this - perhaps he's sick, or if we really want to get conspiratorial, even maliciously poisoned? (I'm trying to convey something that would be outside of his control hence not remotely his fault in any way.)
The thing is, it doesn't matter. He could have cancelled the debate altogether, but instead he rushed through it. This seems reminiscent of his handling of the withdrawal from Afghanistan, which tbf was 99.9% Trump's deal, except the handling of it was Biden's, and revealed some about his personality, to ignore his advisors and substitute his own knowledge for theirs. Which is fine, it's his prerogative as President to do exactly that, except... he was wrong. The first and basically only job of a leader is to pick good advisors and listen to them, so as to be correct. (Then, if time, train someone else to do likewise.)
This is also reminiscent of Bill Clinton's handling of his sexual scandals - it happens, but then he went and lied about it to the Supreme Court, which was a whole other thing.
So now, people are - FOR SOME REASON - not quite trusting that what Biden is saying is truthful. Maybe he means well, maybe it really is temporary, but again, none of that is relevant. He needs to reassure people, if not last week's opportunity then create some new one, that he really does have what it takes to go the distance and be the leader of the United States of America for the next four years.
Fuck, I'm freaking out, bc Trump is going to win.:-( Anyway, thank you for keeping your head about you as the rest of us lose ours - your calm and cogent analyses of things are helpful to read:-).
Hey, first, my apologies. I read your graphic as being in response to the OP, maybe I had my screen zoomed in a little but while my point still stands I think, it has more than a little bit different emphasis to it in that case.
Anyway, I wholeheartedly agree that the leader needs to LEAD. Which is why, regardless of partisan politicking, if Biden or his advisors assess that he is too weak to do the job anymore, for whatever reason (sickness, maybe he was poisoned even, I'm not trying to start a conspiracy here just saying that regardless of anything that would be his "fault"), then part of the job is that he step down in such a case?
Risking things is good and all, when done properly. But stepping down in such a case would not be "timidity", so much as being genuinely honest with oneself about the realities of the particular situation under consideration. i.e. these aren't merely butterflies in one's stomach i.e. performance anxiety that needs to be overcome - this is real, actual risk assessment of pros vs. cons for each of the paths forward, and strategically picking the one that offers the highest likelihood of success.
Steadfastness is a virtue, but stubbornness is a weakness. Hold fast to what is true, not refuse to budge merely bc you have no capacity to do otherwise.