I’ve been questioning the conventional wisdom that Hillary is the most “experienced” candidate in the Democratic presidential primary for a while now (see here, here, and here). She has a long history of involvement in politics and policy, but her experience as an elected official is not any more extensive than that of Barack Obama and John Edwards.

So it was frustrating when Ryan Lizza wrote a piece a couple of weeks ago for the New York Times Week in Review that implicitly questioned the experience of Obama and Edwards, but not Hillary:

Barack Obama’s strong challenge to Hillary Clinton and Rudolph W. Giuliani’s recent surge past Senator John McCain in the polls raise an interesting question: How much does experience matter now in presidential politics?

After 9/11 it seemed that high-level government experience would be more important than ever. And yet, neither Mr. Obama nor Mr. Giuliani have the kind of governing experience traditionally seen as a prerequisite for White House service. Mr. Obama spent nine years in the Illinois State Senate and two years in the United States Senate…

Mr. Obama’s short résumé is sometimes compared to that of John Kennedy, who is remembered by some as a president who charmed his way into office when he was still a little green. But the comparison only underscores how the bar for experience has been lowered in the ensuing decades. Kennedy, after all, had five years in the Navy, six years in the House, and eight years in the Senate, not to mention a Purple Heart, the Navy Medal and a Pulitzer Prize…

Mr. Giuliani and Mr. Obama are not alone. The other major Democratic rival is John Edwards, who served one term in the Senate.

Matthew Yglesias called the article a “great piece” and wrote the following (after partially defending Obama’s record):

[I]f she becomes president Hillary Clinton will probably be one of the very most experienced chief executives in modern times… She was, by most accounts, an important adviser throughout the political career of a man who served two years as Arkansas attorney-general, 12 years as governor of the state, and eight years as President of the United States. She definitely does lack certain kinds of administrative experience, but she’s about as knowledgeable about the full range of relevant topics as anyone who’s ever done the job.

This statement highlights the crucial distinction — people are confusing knowledge with experience. Hillary Clinton would not take office as an “experienced chief executive” because she’s never been a chief executive! If being an experienced and knowledgeable adviser was sufficient to be president, then we’d be seeing a runoff between Leon Panetta and David Gergen. But it’s not. Talk — and advice — are cheap. Being “the decider” is hard.

Similarly, it’s bizarre that conservatives have decided Rudy Giuliani is prepared to handle US foreign policy. He has lots of executive experience as a mayor and prosecutor, but no foreign policy experience at the national level. Being mayor on 9/11 doesn’t count!

And as The Economist points out, Fred Thompson isn’t particularly experienced either:

What I don't believe I've heard anyone point out is that he has less experience in political office than Barack Obama does: eight years in the Senate, versus Obama's four in the Senate and eight as a state senator in Illinois.  Even if you discount state versus federal experience at a two-to-one rate, they're tied. Yet the conservative Powerline blog refers to his "long and distinguished record as a public servant".  The same blogger said of Barack Obama "In my lifetime, neither party has ever nominated a candidate for president with credentials this thin."

Nonetheless, Chris Matthews is drooling over how Thompson “looks like the daddy figure the Republican Party has been looking around for. He looks classic wise man.”

In short, what we’re really considering is the social construction of “experience.” The message is simple: If you look or seem experienced, you don’t need much actual experience as an elected official. Otherwise, the burden of proof is on you.

Postscript: Here’s another example. Back in 1999, President Bush was able to capitalize on his connections to his father and his position as the governor of Texas to become the GOP presidential frontrunner. He seemed experienced even though his entire resume as an elected official consisted of one term in one of the country’s weakest governorships (where he took a two-hour break for lunch every day).