Hawai'i voters who enter the primary election polling booths Sept. 23 will face a choice that's as difficult as it is critical: Who should represent the state in the U.S. Senate, Daniel Akaka or Congressman Ed Case?

The Honolulu Advertiser has concluded that, despite the considerable attributes the Isles' junior congressman could bring to the job, Hawai'i would be best served by returning incumbent Akaka to the Capitol for the next six years.

The editorial board has decided against endorsing in the Republican primary, seeing no contender in the remaining field with the experience or credentials needed for election to the U.S. Senate.

Of the Democrats, both contenders have talents and shortcomings that have become apparent to the many watching the campaign closely. The Advertiser believes, for example, that Case's more measured approach toward the timing of withdrawal from Iraq makes more sense than Akaka's adherence to the "date certain" policy, a stance on which even he has wavered in recent weeks.

And those who watched Thursday's televised debate saw that while the senator conveys a lot of warmth and aloha, he neither thinks as well on his feet nor presents his thoughts as clearly as the younger congressman.

But in reality, a senator's function hinges far less on oratory than on position.

Over his 30 years in Washington, Akaka has accrued seniority that situates him well on key committees. This enables him to advance Hawai'i's interests at a time when the pot of federal money is shrinking; then, from his perch within the lofty appropriations committee, the senior U.S. Sen. Daniel K. Inouye has a good shot at making sure Hawai'i gets the dollars and support it deserves.

Having the senior ranking Akaka-Inouye team in place for as long as possible will ensure Hawai'i and the Pacific region will continue to enjoy support in terms of federal dollars and programs. And this is no small matter.

Akaka himself has pointed to the connections he has forged within the Senate over the years. His critics point to his failure to convert these connections into a win when his legacy bill, the proposal to authorize federal recognition for Native Hawaiians, awaited a vote by the full Senate. Administration misgivings about the bill's constitutionality were underscored in an 11th-hour letter to Senate leadership, and votes needed to move it to the floor fell short by four.

Perhaps the bill was doomed in any case, given the conservative power structure that will remain intact at least until November's general election.

As a keiki o ka 'aina, Akaka's nature has endeared him to his constituents and cemented his stature as ambassador of our multicultural state. And perhaps that low-key, genial demeanor worked against him on the Akaka bill and factors into the belief by some that he is ineffective.

Whichever analysis is correct, however, he remains a public servant untarnished by the kind of misdeeds usually underpinning moves to oust incumbents nationally. His list of legislative credits, while not spectacular, may have been undersold. For example, he has secured benefits for Hawai'i veterans, including the Veterans Administration center at Tripler, that are crucial at a time when funding for vets sit on the chopping block. And in a state with a large number of veterans, these issues are increasingly important going forward.

Akaka's detractors complain that such achievements are mediocre and could have been met by anyone occupying the chair. Case himself maintains that he would have been able to accomplish much more than Akaka, given the same amount of time. That's impossible to know for certain.

What is certain is that Hawai'i would lose practical advantages in the Senate without Akaka, at least for the short term, inroads to securing our share of resources that Hawai'i critically needs. And while Case makes the point that Hawai'i needs to plan its power strategy for the future, sacrificing its position sooner than necessary does not seem a pragmatic choice.

This election has raised some credible concerns about the Democratic power structure in Hawai'i. Case's decision to give up his seat as a U.S. representative took political courage as well as ambition. The party, which has done little to nurture the careers of subsequent generations of leaders, seems mired in the maintenance of the status quo. This may be the principal reason for its loss of the governorship four years ago.

Remarkably, Case has battled his way to prominence, despite the roadblocks. He's been a bit of a renegade as a state lawmaker, and while an independent streak can be an asset, it's also a liability — especially for a small fish in the big pond of the nation's capital. Case's capacity to broker deals in the Capitol is largely unproven.

However, this candidacy alone speaks volumes about his determination, and his intelligence and sophistication is clear to anyone who meets him.

The hope that all Hawai'i holds is that, if he does not survive the primary election, his leadership skills will be tapped before long.

And Democrats have been put on notice: Hawai'i needs new leaders. Moving the party ahead — not running in place — should be its imperative.

For the next six years, meanwhile, Sen. Daniel Akaka, a champion of Hawai'i values for decades, has earned our support.