Former White House press secretary Karine Jean-Pierre is currently promoting her new book, “Independent: A Look Inside a Broken White House, Outside the Party Lines.” Yet, her media appearances, particularly on shows hosted by Stephen Colbert, Tim Miller, and Gayle King, have faced scrutiny. The main issue? She seems unprepared to address a pressing question that looms over her discussions.
This persistent question is, understandably, “How could they not have known that the president was so unwell?” During one of the interviews with Martin Luther King, Jean-Pierre remarked:
“We’re not going to say, ‘Oh, he wasn’t old.’ He was old. And he made fun of it; we always credited ourselves for that… When we talk about mental acuity, which I take seriously, I never saw anyone who wasn’t there. I saw someone enthusiastic.”
Colbert, while recognizing Biden’s disappointing performance in a June debate, maintained that he viewed the president as being fully in control of his faculties. Meanwhile, Miller acknowledged a limitation in assessing Biden’s health regarding serving until 2028.
The question remains: why is Jean-Pierre going through this?
The uncomfortable truth is that media channels, whether conservative or mainstream, had been aware of Biden’s declining mental health long before that debate. Many Americans, including numerous Democrats, were cognizant of this decline. It became so apparent that Biden’s closest aides often shielded him from media scrutiny, carefully scheduling important meetings during times when he was most alert. How could Jean-Pierre, as the press secretary, not have been aware of this? It’s hard to believe she was completely out of the loop.
Yet, she doesn’t claim ignorance. One might question why she would choose to narrate her account in a book and discuss it on national television if she’s not willing to consider these significant deficiencies seriously.
She mentions identifying as an independent now, distancing herself from the Democratic Party, implying discontent with how they’ve been treating Biden. Does she think she should have defended him, even if it meant facing a larger defeat against Trump?
This brings us to a critical point. It’s difficult to take her narrative seriously when it seems to serve more as a publicity stunt for her book. What value do her insights hold if she avoids grappling with the obvious issues that many others saw clearly?
As harsh as it sounds, Jean-Pierre was a key representative for a president who struggled to express himself consistently.
