Re: “Greg Kesich: Democrats again face anguish of picking ‘heart’ or ‘smart’ presidential candidate” and “Letter to the editor: Beware parallels between McGovern, Sanders,” by William Ronalds (Feb. 3):

Those are the two most pathetic endorsements I have ever seen.

Mr. Kesich’s “head” looks at the Iowa data, sees that the young voted overwhelmingly for Bernie Sanders and the old for Hillary Clinton and concludes she’s the nominee “because our system favors the old over the young, continuity over revolution.”

Does the name Barack Obama, our first black president, or “Yes, we can!” mean anything to him? How about Bill Clinton? Jack Kennedy, the first Catholic president?

What about the data that independents went for Sanders 3 to 1? That he was 4 to 1 in integrity? Where will Hillary Clinton get the votes in a general election? She’s a known quantity with huge negatives.

Who is going to change their minds about her? Independents? Republicans? Sanders is still relatively unknown, and people of all political stripes are drawn to him when they see him.

These realities are reflected in CNN polls that showed Clinton beating Trump by 1 percentage point and losing to all the others, while Sanders beats him by 18 points and wallops all the others.

And she will get things done? How? With the people she calls enemies who impeached her husband and have vilified her for years?

To say she will is not “realpolitik,” as Mr. Ronalds concludes. It’s imaginary. And McGovern? Please. There were 500,000 troops in Vietnam, neighborhoods burned out, a sitting president fighting a war, and police with billy clubs at the Chicago convention.

Today we have Donald Trump bloviating and throngs of young people embracing the political system. The Founding Fathers? They started with a revolution, not with compromise. Fortune favors the bold. Bernie’s the one who can win.

John Craford

Cape Elizabeth

Copy the Story Link