Anyone who has followed the Democratic side of the presidential race so far will have been puzzled by the overwhelming bias demonstrated in major media outlets (the Times, CNN, HuffPost, MSNBC, etc.) in favor of Hillary Clinton and against Senator Bernie Sanders. Clinton is trumpeted constantly; Sanders is given periodic grunts of acknowledgment.
Today the Times Editorial Board published their formal endorsement of Clinton, in which they make their case for her candidacy.
Given so much bias, so liberally displayed over the past year, one would expect a strong argument. But when presented straight on, the Times's case for Clinton is full of "empty propaganda slogans" and bland campaign promises that fail to really distinguish her from Bernie Sanders in a positive way, or show that she is in any substantial way superior to him as a candidate. Ironically, the comparisons they make between Clinton and Sanders end up putting the latter in a better light, since her vague (but un-described) "plans" are set against his very concrete proposals for economic and healthcare reform.