Perception is critical in politics, but it is not everything. Reality is also important.

President Joe Biden, according to many of his former staff, pundits and supporters inside and outside of politics, had a very bad night at Thursday’s debate. It’s been described as “horrific,” a “shipwreck,” an “unmitigated disaster.”

I beg to disagree. His performance was neither an F, D or even C. It was a B-, arguably a B.

What the chorus of critics have said is based much more on their opinion about how his performance was and will be perceived, not what it really showed.

The president has a stutter. He stuttered considerably in the debate. So what are we to make of that? Nothing, really. Like Winston Churchill, whose greatest speeches included his stutter, Biden stuttered.

A stutter is not what we got from Clark Gable, Laurence Olivier or Katherine Hepburn — or FDR, Ronald Reagan or JFK. Yet it is what we got from Churchill, who was arguably a better speaker than any from that group. Stuttering is not incompatible with good or even great political speeches or performances during debates.

Biden spoke very fast almost the entire debate, just as fast as Trump. Far from appearing like a tired old man or someone who was drugged or drunk, the president, who has a stutter and also apparently had a cold, made point after point, argument after argument, pulling up facts and making moral arguments.

His discussion of the economy, climate change and NATO during Trump’s presidency was rooted in empirical facts.

Whether he memorized his talking points or thought on his feet, his mind was moving quickly. There were many times that his answers to moderator questions or responses to Trump’s criticisms of him were slowed down by his stutter.

Again: So? It is not appropriate to criticize a man for his impediment, be it a limp or stutter. Trump also spoke fast, but he sounded more like a used car salesman — exaggerating, misleading, lying — than a straight shooter like Biden.

The flaw in Biden’s performance was that he appeared confused at times. He sometimes failed to convey his thoughts, but those moments passed. No one is perfect.

The topics during the debate ranged from Ukraine to inflation, child care, Israel and Gaza, age, climate change, World War III and Jan. 6, 2021. Biden was Biden: hopeful, good on most of the facts, shocked at most of what his opponent said, determined, honest, showing love for this country.

The president may not be eloquent, but he is believable. He does not inspire, but he does, for many of us, instill confidence. He is an elderly statesman — fair, wise and soft-spoken, especially when he has a cold.

If Biden decides to step aside, it won’t be because he revealed himself as a stumbling old man who didn’t know what he was talking about. It will be because the spin doctors are going to kill him, even from his own party.

If he wants to stay in the race, he needs to give an address from the Oval Office in the next two weeks. He can explain the topics he did not explain well in the debate, and he can be more vigorous. He can also do the speech sitting down, which is how most presidential interactions take place.

This debate’s impact on the race may be significant, but it proved little about either of the candidates’ true fitness for the presidency.

Dave Anderson (dmamaryland@gmail.com) has taught moral and political philosophy at The George Washington University, the University of Cincinnati and the Johns Hopkins University. He is the editor of the interdisciplinary volume “Leveraging” (Springer, 2014).