IMO it’s a bit of semantics. The term “president” in discussed context is pretty universally understood as “administration”, with the individual person elected as figurehead of a larger movement of many people and systems. But that person does have the mandate, the bully pulpit in the moment and the legacy after. So it was Biden’s decision to make certain political appointments (regardless of potential approvals) and to vocally and physically support Union efforts, in start contrast of past presidential norms. So I stand by my statement, with the understanding that it’s more of an indictment of America’s past than an enthusiastic endorsement of Biden as an individual