Only a few months ago you could hear Democrats chuckling about the Republican Party's overstuffed clown-car presidential primary. Now Democrats probably wish they had those problems. Voters are limited to two imperfect candidates: U.S. Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vermont, a 74-year-old self-proclaimed socialist who wasn't even a member of the Democratic Party until he ran for president; and former U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, a politician with so much baggage that even Southwest Airlines would start charging fees.

Of those two, we endorse Hillary Clinton.

After eight years with a president who ran on a platform of sky-high ideals, it is time for a candidate with on-the-ground legislative and executive experience in the dirty business of running a government.

Clinton, 68, was elected twice as senator from New York and served for five years as secretary of state under President Barack Obama. Throughout these roles, and even in her unofficial role as first lady, Clinton has proven herself a steely leader and well-informed policy wonk. If elected, we believe she will continue the balanced priorities of an Obama administration that's overseen steady economic growth, a 5 percent unemployment rate and 17 million people with health insurance who didn't have it before.

What's most impressive about Clinton, however, is where she differs from Obama on issues like energy and foreign policy.

While Obama has been agnostic at best on hydraulic fracturing, Clinton has espoused an energy policy that's hard to find outside Texas. Anti-fracking rhetoric was an easy talking point for other Democrats, but Clinton understood how the drilling technology could allow nations to undercut the oil and gas yokes of OPEC and Russia. As secretary of state, she traveled throughout Europe and Africa to advocate for nations to open their shale resources to exploration and connect their energy networks with U.S. exports of natural gas. She has even argued the benefits of natural gas on the campaign trail in front of environmental groups.

In contrast, Sanders has called for every state to ban fracking, and his home state of Vermont prohibited it in 2012. He also wants to ban the export of liquified natural gas, yet remains silent about banning coal exports. That sort of position is blind to political reality, empowers oil powers like OPEC and Russia and undermines what Clinton has called an "important bridge" to a "cleaner, greener economy."

Like on so many issues, Clinton espouses a well-studied energy policy while Sanders aims for the unattainable and undesirable.

Clinton has also argued a more robust foreign policy than Obama's demonstrated - something we'd especially like to see in Eastern Europe. Where Obama made hollow threats in Syria, Clinton advocated early no-fly zones.

Clinton's vote in the Senate to approve the 2003 invasion of Iraq remains a black mark on her record, but her view of America as an indispensable nation is still superior to Sanders' apparent disinterest in issues beyond our borders.

Like many candidates, Clinton flipped positions when she moved from an official role to the campaign trail. The Keystone XL pipeline and Trans-Pacific Partnershp stand out. Clinton also faces questions about her judgment and integrity due to two scandals involving her private email server and also foreign donations to the Clinton Foundation. Democratic supporters have said that it isn't fair to criticize Clinton for political sins that have been committed by other officials. She's suffered under a bizarre, obsessive hatred from some Republican factions ever since she was first lady, and no doubt that some of the ire is aimed her way because she's an unapologetically strong woman in the public eye. But political ethics don't operate on the basis of what's fair for Clinton. As politicians climb the hills of power, it becomes increasingly important to hold them to the highest ethical standards.

Despite these issues, we still believe that Clinton would be a better president than the senator from Vermont.

Sanders' idealism, much like many of the policies he advocates, comes crashing down when faced with political reality. Democrats should prefer a candidate who can focus on goals within reach. Clinton has spent decades learning the hard lessons of full-contact politics, and over that time she has gained the skills, experience and policy positions that make for a fine president.