I've always thought that Joe Biden's smile conceals a nasty man.  His behavior during the presidential campaign revealed a man who doesn't like being contradicted and lashes out at those with lesser power and status than he enjoys.  Often, he insults people who present a point of view that challenges him, as with his infamous "dogface pony soldier" insult, or telling a questioning voter while campaigning that he is "full of s---."

The eye level view of Joe Biden telling a Michigan auto worker "You're full of shit" and then shhhing a female staffer is a must watch.pic.twitter.com/gJ0BsP19UE

— Steve Guest (@SteveGuest) March 10, 2020

But now that he occupies the Oval Office, his habits of mind and his information-gathering and decision-making styles are matters of national concern, and the New York Times is taking critical notice.  I wonder if they see him flailing and failing and want to get ahead of the story.  The lede sentence of the article, "Beneath Joe Biden's Folksy Demeanor, a Short Fuse and an Obsession With Details," is sardonic:

The commander in chief was taking his time, as usual.

This leads to a discussion of his difficulty in coming to a decision on handling Putin that is concluded with this:

Quick decision-making is not Mr. Biden's style. His reputation as a plain-speaking politician hides a more complicated truth. Before making up his mind, the president demands hours of detail-laden debate from scores of policy experts, taking everyone around him on what some in the West Wing refer to as his Socratic "journey" before arriving at a conclusion.

Those trips are often difficult for his advisers, who are peppered with sometimes obscure questions. Avoiding Mr. Biden's ire during one of his decision-making seminars means not only going beyond the vague talking points that he will reject, but also steering clear of responses laced with acronyms or too much policy minutiae, which will prompt an outburst of frustration, often laced with profanity.

Gosh, I was told that with his decades of D.C. experience, Biden was familiar with all the acronyms and policy minutiae (unlike you know who), and this was a key to getting things back to "normal."

The three reporters who wrote the article, Michael D. Shear, Katie Rogers, and Annie Karni, say they interviewed over two dozen "current and former Biden associates" to put together a picture of how he operates. 

What emerges is a portrait of a president with a short fuse, who is obsessed with getting the details right — sometimes to a fault, including when he angered allies and adversaries alike by repeatedly delaying a decision on whether to allow more refugees into the United States.

Biden may spend his time dithering and delaying decisions (generally, a terrible way for an executive to operate), but he combines this trait with impatience:

Mr. Biden is gripped by a sense of urgency that leaves him prone to flares of impatience, according to numerous people who regularly interact with him[.]

There is no hint of mental deterioration in the article, a topic that must be forbidden to mention in the corporate press, no matter how visible it becomes.

But I suspect that this article is a test to see how Biden's handlers react and how their readers do, too.  The Times is making good money off its digital subscriptions and wants the hyper-partisans who pay up to feel satisfied about their superiority to the knuckle-dragging Trump and his supporters.

Photo credit: Twitter video screen grab.