Hillary Clinton on Barack Obama:
He was a part-time state senator for a few years, and then he came to the Senate and immediately started running for president. And that’s his prerogative. That’s his right. But I think it is important to compare and contrast our records.
Part time, okay….
Meanwhile, the experience thing is obviously a good issue for Clinton but I feel like when you put it this bluntly, it sort of evaporates. I mean, compare their records? Clinton’s record turns out to be really thin — she’s only been a Senator since 2001 and hasn’t authored any major legislation. Barack Obama’s been in the US Senate even more briefly, but did write some significant bills as an Illinois Senator, and has served more years in elected office than has Clinton. Like everyone else, I can’t shake the sense that Clinton’s years of first ladying amount to some kind of substantial experience, but they don’t really amount to a record. What’s more, in a lot of ways she’s really not running on her husband’s record — she’s certainly not emphasizing the idea that she’s going to be a committed free trader and budget balancer.
UPDATE: To be clear, it’s not Clinton’s fault that she hasn’t authored any significant legislation — it wasn’t in the cards given the larger political situation. But that’s what makes it strange for her to specifically ask us to compare her “record” with Obama’s; what are we supposed to find when we look?