[guest post by Dana]

Poor Hillary! can’t catch a break. The cover of the new TIME magazine mischievously shows her with devil horns. Accidental? Intentional? Subliminal messaging from editors already tired of the Hillary! circus and would rather see Warren run? Not only is she with horns, but she appears to be looking down while wearing a long, shapeless coat. Is she depressed? Is she fretting over that “old car smell” she is so desperate to eliminate? Or is she perhaps trying to contain the odor of yet one more scandal of her own making under that big coat?

Contrast it with TIME Magazine’s cover of then-contender Barrack Obama that depicted a confident, youthful new car smell candidate for the presidency:

Halo imagery:

(H/T The Corner)

–Dana

[guest post by Dana]

When asked about Hillary Clinton’s efforts to distance herself from him as she moves toward a possible run in 2016, President Obama commented that he believed the American people want “that new car smell” in their next president:

“They wanna drive somethin’ off the lot that — that doesn’t have as — as much mileage as me,” he told George Stephanopoulos on This Week.

Really? Obama is all of 53! But Hillary, on the other hand, is 67 years old. An old, smelly woman. A post-menopausal grandma who wears dowdy, matronly pantsuits. And smells. Hillary, the old failed Edsel trying one last time to sputter and chug her way to the White House while spewing copious amounts of exhaust and smelly pollutants. But voters don’t want old or smelly. Apparently they want a sharp, fresh smelling, leather-upholstered sports car that can traverse any highway and byway, or the halls of Congress, with speed and efficiency while looking sleek and stylish. Message sent and received: Hillary was once nice enough, and now she smells enough. Is the Great Orator unaware of his foot-in-mouth disease or did we long ago conclude his seemingly innocent linguistic jabs are actually made with shrewd calculated intent? Women of a certain age are wondering. And if Joe Biden – who is 72 years old – runs in 2016, will the president comment on his aging unsavory odor, too?

–Dana

How’s that for a headline?

The story that Biden was trying to squash an investigation into his son appears to be wrong on the facts. Not that hyperpartisans care about the facts.

Joe Biden traveled to Ukraine in March 2016 (it was not a phone call, as Trump claimed) and said the United States would withhold $1 billion in loan guarantees (not $2 billion, as Trump claimed) unless Shokin was removed (it was not a demand to stop the Burisma prosecution, as Trump claimed, and there’s no evidence Shokin “was after” Hunter Biden).

The vice president’s trip was part of a longer push by the United States, Western allies and nongovernmental organizations such as the International Monetary Fund and World Bank. The goal was to promote reform in Ukraine and remove a prosecutor who allegedly was turning a blind eye to corruption.

Bloomberg News reported May 7 that “at the time Biden made his ultimatum, the probe into the company – Burisma Holdings, owned by Mykola Zlochevsky – had been long dormant, according to the former official, Vitaliy Kasko.”

“There was no pressure from anyone from the U.S. to close cases against Zlochevsky,” Kasko, a former official in the prosecutor general’s office, told Bloomberg News. “It was shelved by Ukrainian prosecutors in 2014 and through 2015.”

That said, Biden’s involvement presents an appearance of a conflict of interest. Of course, the idea that Trump superfans care deeply about conflicts of interest is hilarious.

I’m unaware of evidence directly showing that Biden knew of the investigation (which had apparently already been long shelved) but it smells bad.

That said, everything about Trump smells bad. If you can’t bring yourself to acknowledge that, publicly and forthrightly, forgive me if I don’t take you seriously about your alleged Principled Concerns about Biden.

I don’t think any of this gets any traction, any more than Trump’s BS usually does. The facts are messy and none of the nuance will make it into the public debate. Trump has gestured at this kind of thing before, albeit as a candidate (“Russia, if you’re listening”), and his superfans shrugged then. (Until I read the Mueller report and learned how deadly serious he was about finding the emails, sending Flynn to find them the same day he issued his entreaty to Russia, I thought he was just joking with that “Russia, if you’re listening” line. But he wasn’t.) If you were to give Trump superfans even a transparently false and phony story that Biden is dirty too, they would snap it up regardless of the facts. That is who they are and what they do. The fact that there actually is a genuine conflict of interest issue just emboldens them in a position they would hold anyway.

[Cross-posted at The Jury Talks Back.]

[guest post by Dana]

Hoo-boy. For years I’ve railed about Joe Biden’s creepy handsiness when it comes to women other than his wife. While I’m not the least bit surprised that a former politician has accused Biden of kissing her on the campaign trail in 2014, I am surprised that she is publicly speaking out about it and not giving him cover for his bad behavior like powerful Democrats have done for years. And if everyday Americans have noticed the former vice-president’s incessant handsiness with women, then you know that everyone from President Obama to Nancy Pelosi to Hillary Clinton to Loretta Lynch and everyone else who has worked with Biden, also knew. But to my knowledge, no one has come forward to make a direct and public complaint. Until now.

From Lucy Flores writing in The Cut:

…when my campaign heard from Vice-President Joe Biden’s office that he was looking to help me and other Democrats in the state, I was grateful and flattered. His team offered to bring him to a campaign rally in an effort to help boost voter turnout. We set the date for November 1, just three days before election day.I found my way to the holding room for the speakers, where everyone was chatting, taking photos, and getting ready to speak to the hundreds of voters in the audience. Just before the speeches, we were ushered to the side of the stage where we were lined up by order of introduction. As I was taking deep breaths and preparing myself to make my case to the crowd, I felt two hands on my shoulders. I froze. “Why is the vice-president of the United States touching me?”

I felt him get closer to me from behind. He leaned further in and inhaled my hair. I was mortified. I thought to myself, “I didn’t wash my hair today and the vice-president of the United States is smelling it. [Ed. Seriously? Your concern was that you hadn’t washed your hair and it didn’t smell pretty for the veep? Oh. Come. On.] And also, what in the actual fuck? Why is the vice-president of the United States smelling my hair?” He proceeded to plant a big slow kiss on the back of my head. My brain couldn’t process what was happening. I was embarrassed. I was shocked. I was confused. There is a Spanish saying, “tragame tierra,” it means, “earth, swallow me whole.” I couldn’t move and I couldn’t say anything. I wanted nothing more than to get Biden away from me. My name was called and I was never happier to get on stage in front of an audience.

By then, as a young Latina in politics, I had gotten used to feeling like an outsider in rooms dominated by white men. But I had never experienced anything so blatantly inappropriate and unnerving before. Biden was the second-most powerful man in the country and, arguably, one of the most powerful men in the world. He was there to promote me as the right person for the lieutenant governor job. Instead, he made me feel uneasy, gross, and confused. The vice-president of the United States of America had just touched me in an intimate way reserved for close friends, family, or romantic partners — and I felt powerless to do anything about it.

Our strange interaction happened during a pivotal moment in my political career. I’d spent months raising money, talking to voters, and securing endorsements. Biden came to Nevada to speak to my leadership and my potential to be second-in-command — an important role he knew firsthand. But he stopped treating me like a peer the moment he touched me. Even if his behavior wasn’t violent or sexual, it was demeaning and disrespectful. I wasn’t attending the rally as his mentee or even his friend; I was there as the most qualified person for the job.

Flores offers these parting thoughts:

I’m not suggesting that Biden broke any laws, but the transgressions that society deems minor (or doesn’t even see as transgressions) often feel considerable to the person on the receiving end. That imbalance of power and attention is the whole point — and the whole problem.

The timing of Flores’s revealing story is interesting given that its publication comes in the midst of Biden teasing-out and test-running a possible announcement for his candidacy in 2020. Not only is he being coy about running, but he also appears to be gauging every possible reaction to an announcement and making preemptive strikes accordingly (possibly asking Stacy Abrams a place on his ticket and promising to only serve for one term).

Flores explains why she is coming forward with her accusations now:

For years I feared my experience would be dismissed. Biden will be Biden. Boys will be boys. I worried about the doubts, the threats, the insults, and the minimization. “It’s not that big of a deal. He touched her, so what?” The immediate passing of judgement and the questioning of motives. “Why now? Why so long after? She just wants attention.” Or: “It’s politically motivated.” I would be lying if I said I didn’t carefully consider all of this before deciding to speak. But hearing Biden’s potential candidacy for president discussed without much talk about his troubling past as it relates to women became too much to keep bottled up any longer.

It would be completely logical to assume that any forthcoming public accusation would indeed be dismissed, given that this has been the standard response by Democrats for years when it came to Biden and his inappropriate behavior with women. Ironically, Flores’s own party!

Bill Russo, a spokesman for Biden, responded to the accusation made by Flores:

“Vice President Biden was pleased to support Lucy Flores’s candidacy for lieutenant governor of Nevada in 2014 and to speak on her behalf at a well-attended public event.

Neither then, nor in the years since, did he or the staff with him at the time have an inkling that Ms. Flores had been at any time uncomfortable, nor do they recall what she describes,

But Vice President Biden believes that Ms. Flores has every right to share her own recollection and reflections, and that it is a change for better in our society that she has the opportunity to do so. He respects Ms. Flores as a strong and independent voice in our politics and wishes her only the best.

As of yesterday, before this story broke, Biden held a comfortable lead over the other leading Dem candidates. Mind you, this is without even making an official announcement:

Former Vice President Joe Biden is out front in a poll by Quinnipiac University out Thursday, with 29% of Democrats and Democratic-leaning voters saying they’ll vote for him in the 2020 primary if he runs.

He is followed by Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders (19%), former Texas Rep. Beto O’Rourke (12%), and Sen. Kamala Harris (8%), according to the Quinnipiac poll.

Oh, and I wanted to post this photo (via The Cut) of Biden standing between Lucy Flores and actress Eva Longoria at the event where the alleged kiss took place because it’s a perfect example of a question answering itself: Why would Biden have his hand up at the top of Longoria’s waist where he might accidentally feel the side of her breast?

UPDATE:Joe Biden released a statement in response to the accusations made against him by Flores:

“In my many years on the campaign trail and in public life, I have offered countless handshakes, hugs, expressions of affection, support and comfort,” Biden said in a statement. “And not once – never – did I believe I acted inappropriately. If it is suggested I did so, I will listen respectfully. But it was never my intention.”

Also, as of today, several 2020 Democrat candidates have given public statements concerning Biden and Flores. None of them suggested that the accusation disqualifies Biden from running:

Massachusetts Democratic Sen. Elizabeth Warren said Saturday she believes Flores, “and Joe Biden needs to give an answer.”

Former Secretary of Housing and Urban Development Julián Castro said at the same Iowa event as Warren that he believed Flores. “We need to live in a nation where people can hear her truth,” Castro said.

…Sen. Bernie Sanders… said he too “had no reason not to believe” Flores’ account…

Massachusetts Democratic Rep. Seth Moulton, who said he is considering a presidential run, said… that Biden “does need to answer this.”

“I also just saw his statement,” Moulton said. “He said we need to listen to women, and he is right. We need to listen to women. The bottom line here is that women deserve the respect and the opportunity to share these stories, and it takes tremendous courage to do so, and that’s not easy, what she just did on TV. ”

Minnesota Democratic Sen. Amy Klobuchar said on ABC’s “This Week” that she had “no reason not to believe her” and that Biden would have to continue to address the allegation if he joins the race.

(Cross-posted at The Jury Talks Back.)

–Dana

It’s remarkable because they never endorse:

In the 34-year history of USA TODAY, the Editorial Board has never taken sides in the presidential race. Instead, we’ve expressed opinions about the major issues and haven’t presumed to tell our readers, who have a variety of priorities and values, which choice is best for them. Because every presidential race is different, we revisit our no-endorsement policy every four years. We’ve never seen reason to alter our approach. Until now.

This year, the choice isn’t between two capable major party nominees who happen to have significant ideological differences. This year, one of the candidates — Republican nominee Donald Trump — is, by unanimous consensus of the Editorial Board, unfit for the presidency.

From the day he declared his candidacy 15 months ago through this week’s first presidential debate, Trump has demonstrated repeatedly that he lacks the temperament, knowledge, steadiness and honesty that America needs from its presidents.

Whether through indifference or ignorance, Trump has betrayed fundamental commitments made by all presidents since the end of World War II. These commitments include unwavering support for NATO allies, steadfast opposition to Russian aggression, and the absolute certainty that the United States will make good on its debts. He has expressed troubling admiration for authoritarian leaders and scant regard for constitutional protections.

I have no quarrel at all with their conclusion, but I don’t support all of their reasoning. For example: why do we need to bother with NATO? There is no more Soviet Union. Why do we need foreign entanglements, when no less a personage than George Washington warned us against that very danger? And as for “the absolute certainty that the United States will make good on its debts” — wake up and smell the deficit, USA Today Editorial Board! It’s virtually a certainty that the United States won’t make good on its debts. We’re over $19.5 trillion in the hole with absolutely no plan to do anything other than run up huge deficits as far as the eye can see. This is a central reason someone is unfit?

No. There is a host of reasons that actually do make Trump unfit, and the piece touches on some of them. Trump’s penchant for dishonesty is so over-the-top and insane that he makes Hillary Clinton look like a fibbing nine-year-old rather than the habitual lying cretin we all know her to be. He once pretended to be a pro-Trump publicist named John Miller, and every person with ears and a brain knows it was him — yet he denied, in 2016, that it was him. I can’t get over that to this day. (And no debate moderator has ever called him on it!) He is carelessly cruel to people on a consistent basis. He is a whiner and a coward. He is a man who avoided military service based on a made up, bullshit medical excuse, and then mocked the service of a man, John McCain, whose story of courage would make anyone who heard it want to punch a lifesized cutout of Donald Trump in the mouth. Trump is everything that is wrong with this country. Indeed, on any objective basis, Donald Trump is a worse human being than Hillary Clinton, and that’s saying something. It is only the fact that her policies are nominally far worse for the country (although who knows what the lying Trump’s real polices really are) that prevents a vote for her from being the obvious choice. If my vote came down to nothing more than which person is a more moral human being, I would easily cast my vote for the lying, power-hungry, wretched old harpy.

And yet our tendency for our partisan reflexes to kick in has blinded Republicans to these problems of Trump’s. Trump’s comment about shooting someone on Fifth Avenue was supposed to be a kind of joke, but I believe it’s no longer a joke. Politics is the best profession for a con man — just ask Brett Kimberlin, who has clothed his cons in the garb of partisan politics for years — because no other area turns off the rational part of the brain like politics. I truly believe, with all my heart and soul, that Donald Trump could literally murder someone tomorrow, and if it were not captured on video, no matter the evidence, millions would still support him. “Well, the Clintons have murdered people, probably a lot more people!” the Trumpers would say. You know they would. They really, actually would.

I recently ran a poll, which was somewhat tongue in cheek to be sure, asking people whether they would vote for the worst mass murderer in history (Chairman Mao) or Hillary Clinton, given that binary choice. The small sample reflected the poll’s lack of seriousness, but it still is remarkable that Chairman Mao won a solid majority of votes, 61% to 39%.

If murdering people, or lying on an insane and pathological scale, aren’t going to change people’s minds about Trump, the opinion of a few editorial writers at a national newspaper sure won’t. It’s still a noteworthy piece and deserves your time.

UPDATE: These South Park clips sum it all up.

It is time for this blog’s fifth annual review of the performance of the Los Angeles Times, which long-time Patterico readers know as the Los Angeles Dog Trainer. Previous annual reviews can be found at these links:

• 2003

• 2004 — Part One

• 2004 — Part Two

• 2005

• 2006

This year’s installment covers a number of topics, including the 2008 election, the U.S. Attorney scandal, and many others. It summarizes an entire year’s worth of work documenting omissions, distortions, and misrepresentations by this newspaper. The evidence is voluminous, but hopefully entertaining. If you have half as much fun reading this as I did writing it, you’ll enjoy this post considerably.

I hope every new reader who reads this post will bookmark the main page and return often. Bloggers: please blogroll the site if you like it. I’ll be happy to reciprocate the link if I like your site — write me and let me know your URL, and I’ll take a look.

Bloglines subscribers can subscribe by clicking on this button:

Without further ado, let’s get to the bias:

(more…)