Enquirer editorial board

As Ohioans head to the polls Tuesday, the contest for the Democratic presidential nomination is getting less attention than the “Trump vs. the GOP” show, but the choices presented are almost as dramatic.

U.S. Sen. Bernie Sanders is further left than any other sitting senator – in fact, he’s serving as an independent in his current seat, not a Democrat at all. On the other hand, Hillary Clinton, the former secretary of state, U.S. senator and first lady, is the epitome of a pragmatic, mainstream Democrat.

Clinton wants to tweak the Affordable Care Act; Sanders wants to replace it with a single-payer system. She wants to make college loans more affordable; he wants to make college free. She wants to increase the federal minimum wage to $12 an hour; he wants it to be $15.

It’s pretty obvious whose approach has a better chance of making headway in a divided Congress.

This editorial board, however, also believes in truth and transparency, and this is where Clinton has certainly fallen short. From a false claim of coming under sniper fire in 1996 to revelations about her use of a private email server as secretary of state, Clinton’s lack of candor and openness has been a persistent problem. Sanders, on the other hand, is easily the most trustworthy presidential candidate, according to an Economist/YouGov poll – a likely factor in his surprise win in Michigan.

Given the difficult choice of pragmatism vs. truthfulness, The Enquirer editorial board chooses pragmatism. Clinton gets our endorsement for the Democratic presidential nomination.

Sanders’ candidacy is in many ways more like that of Donald Trump than Clinton – an appeal to emotion that envisions a revolution rather than evolution. “It is too late for establishment politics,” Sanders said in the Flint, Michigan, debate. Just as some voters might choose to believe that Trump has a brilliant, secret plan to Make America Great Again, for others, Sanders’ dream of free access to health care and a college education is seductive.

But U.S. presidents are not dictators and don’t have the power to make most changes singlehandedly, and any president must have the patience to work with and through Congress. That inconvenient fact makes many of Sanders’ campaign promises political nonstarters in addition to being unwise, extremist policy proposals. President Obama barely got the Affordable Care Act enacted, and it remains a Republican target. Who seriously thinks Sanders is going to be able to fold the entire health care system – 17.5 percent of the United States’ gross domestic product – into Medicare?

Clinton knows better than almost any presidential candidate how government works and what levers to pull to achieve progress. She has more nuanced proposals than her primary opponent for moving the United States forward in various areas:

•Transportation infrastructure: Would increase spending to address crumbling highways, bridges and pipes and at the same time create more jobs.

•Foreign policy: Would use diplomacy and coalition-building first when dealing with foreign threats such as Iran and ISIS.

•Health care: Would expand the Affordable Care Act rather than creating a whole new system of “free” care for everyone.

•College costs: Would provide more assistance so students who work can graduate from public colleges debt-free.

Tens of thousands of voters so far this primary season have cast ballots for the candidate who is promising easy fixes in an uncertain time. Socialize health care. Build a wall.

The Enquirer’s top candidates – Clinton on the Democratic side and Ohio Gov. John Kasich on the Republican side – would provide a steady hand and strategic nudges to get government back on track.

America needs leaders with expertise in the art of the possible rather than the gift of glib, empty promises.