"In one of the more successful ploys of the campaign, Hillary Clinton has succeeded in spreading the idea that eight years in a ceremonial non-elected role previously held by such political giants as Mamie Eisenhower and Pat Nixon is equivalent to experience in office. It would be nice if reporters did more to ask her about what she actually accomplished as First Lady, given how much weight she has put on these eight years, and about how the experience "tested" her, as she has repeatedly claimed."

Why not place the onus on the Obama camp (rather than on the media) to debunk Hillary's habit of claiming her time as first lady as "experience"?  It seems that the best defense that Obama can offer to the "what about your relative inexperience" question is to retort that 1) Hillary has no more actual legislative experience than himself and 2) Bill Clinton had almost no experience at this point in the campaign in 1991.

I agree with the point that the different levels of experience between Hillary and Obama are overblown, but I don't think you can discount First Lady experience.  Even if Hillary had absolutely zero actual influence or impact, just to be privy to the inside day to day details of a White House administration for 8 years gives her a rare and valuable form of experience, in addition to her actual legal and legislative experience.   Who knows, Mamie Eisenhower might have made a decent president, too.

"And from this point of view, praising Obama for his instincts is not delusional at all"

It is if that is the basis of endorsing him to the exclusion of the examination of his record--which narrow way of seeing him was the gravamen of Wilentz's complaint, as I read him, with some additional obiter to be sure.

And Newsdex is right about the First Lady thing, I think.

"The first important point that has gotten obscured here is that, in terms of experience, the three leading candidates are in fact surprisingly similar: career lawyers with between four and eight years of experience in the U.S. Senate as of January 2009. "

The premise confused piece is already flawed: Obama was elected to the U.S. Senate in 2004 for the term beginning January 3, 2005, and just two years later he jumped into the presidential race without having done much in the Senate. A particularly powerful example of how little Obama did in the US Senate before jumping into the presidential race is Steve Clemons' startling discovery that the Senate Foreign Relations Committee's Subcommittee on European Affairs, of which Obama was the chairman, had not convened a single policy hearing during this time, and that Obama had not even visited Europe at all,  except for a short stopover in London. And who can forget Obama's pattern of missing important Senate votes only to turn around and pontificate about how he would have voted after public sentiment about a bill became known.  Obama's experience in the Senate is non-existent and cannot be compared with Hillary Clinton's who has been lauded for her hard work and diligence in the Senate by folks as unlikely as Trent Lott and Lindsey Graham. And anyone who forgets Hillary's experience working on children and women issues, and dismisses her experience as first lady lacks the "intellectual honesty" to act as a referee in this debate between  Sean Wilentz and Cass Sunstein. In fact, Obama's actual record of accomplishments is so thin that (Wilentz' point) his supporters  have resorted to citing his "mystique", "intuition", "gut feeling". and, yes, "face" (Andrew Sullivan) as his qualifications to be POTUS, experience be damned. His sophomoric jeremiads and delusions about "uniting the country " have been elevated to the level of Confucian wisdom at very time when another would-be "uniter" with great "instinct", "gut feeling" and intuition" is sitting out the last 11 months of an absolutely disastrous presidency.

Sean Wilentz was right on the mark, Please rewind and write another piece that would be more reality-based. Thank you.

correction: The premise OF THIS confused piece is already flawed

BigEll, Obama says exactly that, what you said he should say. Now if he would only listen to ME [although as of this writing I can't complain with his strategy, resultswise] - and talk more, much more, about what he's done in office. What he's done in office - including Illinois, which I think people are unfairly overlooking - is a huge part of why I support him. Ethics legislation - always good, and shows a good heart, like McCain's - but also that fabulous death penalty reform legislation. Where he got the opposing sides to agree, after a ton of tireless negotiation, and the thing passed unanimously. And others had tried and failed to get it passed before, so this was no small thing. And talking more about what he's done would also possibly shut up Sean Wilentz, although probably not because Wilentz is a personal friend of the Clintons, but at least hose down the argument as a tool against Obama

And kudos to this piece, actually, for pointing out what nobody has, that I can see, which is that Wilenz' argument cuts against his friend at least as much as it does Obama. I am still waiting for some kind of list of what she has done in 35 whole years of "fighting" for me/us. Aside from look at maimed Rwandans and vomit, and get shepperded into the bulletproof section of a plane in Bosnia, leaving poor Sinbad and Sheryl Crow on their own.  I want a list of actual accomplishments. Anyone? Anyone?

RE: Hillary's First Lady Experience

Wasn't she the one who headed up the disastrous health care reform plan?  Oh yeah, right.  That.  We all tried to forget that, didn't we?

There might not be a lot of experience behind Obama, but he doesn't have any of the weaknesses we've seen from W during the past seven years.  I think American voters are looking for someone who at least WANTS to start putting America back on track, and Obama succeeds more than any other candidate in doing so.

Will he get the nomination?  Hard to say - but I don't think his lack of governing is going to play into it one way or another.

bcbaird,

I think the "disastrous" health care reform plan is actually a mark in her favor, and to echo some of the other posters, a sign of her experience.  Being privy to many of the day-to-day decisions of Bill's administration allowed her to see much of what worked and what didn't.  Health care is an extremely informative example--her first plan was a 1,300 page behemoth that was remarkably detailed and therefore inflexible.  Had she compromised with John Chafee in '93, a universal reform plan probably would have passed.  But her new plan is more guidelines, allowing Congress some leeway in the actual legislation, which is how Presidents who are successful with Congress (like Clinton's second term, pre-Monica, and Dubya) get it done.  Also, based on many of Hillary's statements on the trail, she has really taken many of Bill's early mistakes to heart.  I think Obama has more potential to be a great president than Hillary, but I'd say Hillary's experience makes her a safer bet to be a GOOD president.