Americans are faced with two of the most unpopular presidential candidates in modern history but that does not mean that they have a difficult choice. One of them clearly is capable of doing the job and one of them is uniquely unqualified.

The Standard-Speaker editorial board, and those of the The Times-Tribune of Scranton and The Citizens' Voice of Wilkes-Barre, endorse Democrat Hillary Rodham Clinton. She is qualified by experience, temperament and, especially, preparation, whereas Republican Donald J. Trump falls well below the bar in all of those areas.

Trump, like former Democratic candidate Sen. Bernie Sanders, has struck a chord among many Americans who believe that they have been betrayed by government, who are economically buffeted by globalization, market forces and technology and believe that Washington leaves them nowhere to turn. Their concerns are legitimate and should be a priority of the next president and Congress, regardless of who holds the majority.

But Trump also has struck a chord among racists, misogynists, xenophobes, isolationists and any number of other fringe players whose interests are self-satisfying score-settling rather than the future of the United States.

As a candidate, Trump has played to that element by vowing to, in effect, blow up vital institutions that underlie our democracy and even our security. He would diminish NATO, for example, which is responsible for the longest era of sustained peace in European history and reverse commerce, environmental and security arrangements that are the infrastructure of American global leadership.

But at least that would be a policy. Trump's abiding theme is wholly untenable — "only I" can resolve any problem. His vision extends only as far as the nearest mirror. "Only I" can bring back coal-mining to Northeastern Pennsylvania; "only I" can arrest the forces of market economics; "only I" can bring the Islamic State to heel, and on and on. He offers a glimpse at how he thinks he could do so in his praise of Russian President Vladimir Putin's thuggery, which Trump calls "leadership." Not in this republic.

Clinton also carries substantial baggage. Her first move amid scrutiny always seems to be to circle the wagons rather than disclosing and justifying her conduct. Clearly, she does not trust the public to trust her even as she asks for votes. Excessive secrecy has been a trademark during her career, from her stewardship of a task force on national health care during her husband's administration in 1993 through the use of private email as secretary of state.

And ethically, Clinton sometimes has danced on the razor's edge. When she was secretary of state, for example, foreign governments and entities with interests in U.S. foreign policy made substantial contributions to the Clinton Global Foundation.

But part of Clinton's low popularity flows from a level of scrutiny that rarely has been applied to a public figure over so long a period. Clearly, she has been targeted. The long, shameful Benghazi witch hunt conducted by congressional Republicans, for example, was much more about bringing down Hillary Clinton than about getting to the truth.

One result is that Clinton has been politically battle-tested — not just in the context of political campaigns but in actual governance at multiple levels — like few candidates in history. Her adversaries inevitably learn that she is tough, smart and prepared, and that she perseveres, just as adversaries of the United States would come to realize during a Hillary Clinton presidency.

Although Clinton has a reputation for being polarizing, that is not her record for her tenure as a two-term senator from New York. In that role, she often worked across the aisle and had good relationships with many Republicans.

On balance, there is no comparison in this race. Hillary Rodham Clinton should become the next president of the United States.