A brief complaint about the Times' endorsement of Clinton

As I understand primary endorsements, you're supposed to explain why one candidate is preferable over the others. In the same party. But today's New York Times' endorsement of Hillary Clinton seems more an exercise in bait-and-switch than a legitimate explanation of why her policies are preferable to those of Bernie Sanders. 

The Times argues that Sanders' ideas about breaking up the big banks and replacing Obamacare with a single-payer system aren't "achievable" or realistic, but they do praise Clinton for "achievable" goals. What a campaign slogan that would be. "Vote for my achievable ideals!" 

The Times also says Clinton has "responded well" to criticism about her ties to Wall Street, and they stress that her "ability to learn," "steeliness" and likelihood of using the military "with infinitely more care and wisdom" are all qualities that put her above the Republican candidates. And what the Republicans have to do with an endorsement that's supposed to explain a preference for one Democrat over another, I could not tell you.

Incidentally why does the Times, and virtually every other media entity, refer to Sanders as a "so-called" Democratic socialist? It would be nice if the same scrutiny were applied elsewhere in this farce we're calling a campaign. Like "Cruz, the so-called fiscal conservative" or "Bush and his self-described competency." But whatever. 

Sanders has the establishment running scared. If you don't want to endorse him because you disagree with him, fine, but when you dismiss him because his platform, which is widely shared by a lot of Americans, isn't "realistic," or when you waste time explaining how Clinton is unlike the GOP (exactly how many of the Times' readers need to have that distinction drawn out for them?), you're reiterating to the voters exactly why they should not trust corporate media. 

Well, I never saw this coming.