The New York Times editorial board endorses Hillary Clinton in the senate primary. They explain why:
[I]t is hard to imagine [Clinton's opponent Jonathan Tasini] working well in a large body of egotistic and generally conservative politicians.
They also cite Clinton's name recognition (thanks to the constant promotion by the Times and other corporate media outlets, as they ignore Tasini) and her obscene amounts of campaign money (thanks to corporate lobbies) as reasons to support her, even as they point out that "she has hardly been a profile in courage... Mrs. Clinton’s biggest flaw is her unwillingness to risk political capital for principle. That is not to say that she lacks principles, but whenever her moral convictions become politically inexpedient, she will struggle to find a way to cloak them in vague rhetoric or deflect attention with a compromise that makes the danger go away."
This seems like a good time to share a letter from Tasini supporter Bill Strzempek, written in reponse to an August 21 Times editorial reproaching Clinton for refusing to debate Tasini. The Times did not see fit to print it, but I do:
It is brazen hypocrisy for the Times to complain on its op-ed page that Hillary Clinton "has successfully ignored" her progressive opponent, Jonathan Tasini, when the Times is guilty of the same thing. To read your pages one would think only Connecticut has a Democratic primary. Rather than displaying crocodile tears over the lack of debate between Tasini and Clinton, you might instead provide your readers with in-depth coverage of their opposing views on Iraq, healthcare, NAFTA, workers' wages, corporate donations to politicians, gay marriage, and Walmart, just to get started. Or you could sponsor a debate between the two yourselves.
Your call for debate does not absolve you from your responsibility to provide equal coverage of both candidates in your pages.