Experience is more than a job chronology. Maybe what we're talking about is "background", anyway.

Queen Elizabeth II has reigned since the 1950s. However, no one thinks she has much experience actually governing the U.K.

On the other hand, the Queen has been involved in every major, and most minor, decisions taken by various Prime Ministers.

Because of this, she has the Big Picture view of what's been going on in the U.K. for the past 50+ years. She knows the players. She's outlived many of them.

The Queen also knows all the levers, big and small, of government and how to push them. She doesn't just know her job. She knows everyone else's job, too.

She knows how all the little parts fit together to form a functioning whole.

Moreover, the Queen knows where the bodies are buried. She knows the secrets--state and interpersonal. Who does, or doesn't do, what and for whom. Who to play against whom. Etc., etc.

The Queen could, in fact, govern the U.K., and without the aid of a Prime Minister, if necessary. Maybe not every monarch could do this, but the current Queen has "background" if not experience.

You can't pay for this. You can't learn it in school or on the stump. You can't get it from your advisors in the first 100 days of your administration.

This is the kind of background Sen. Clinton has. It doesn't matter how she got it. It matters that she has it.

If you don't like the background Sen. Clinton has, fine, but don't pretend she doesn't have one, or that she and Sen. Obama have comparable backgrounds.

Or, most importantly, use it AGAINST her. Seriously Richmond, I really enjoy reading your posts, and I can see why FrayWatch quotes you.

Too bad the Queen can't run for President. Seriously, is this really a favorable comparison for Queen Hillary. To be compared with the train wreck that is the House of Windsor. Your right, that is the extent of Hillary's experience. Filthy back room deals, publicly exposed infidelity and an undeserved feeling of entitlement. That might be OK for some inbread monarchy, but should hardly be the gold standard for a Democratic Republic.

We have had almost two decades of having a Bush or Clinton in the White House. The last thing we need is a Clinton Restoration. Yes, it will make Jay Leno's job easier, but how many intern BJ jokes do the rest of us have to endure.

Actually Richmond, your argument makes the same confusion in roles that Noah is arguing against. The better (and completely gender neutral) royal analogue for Hillary's "background" is Prince Philip, the Queen's husband and consort. And even better, isn't he more relevant analogy in the British context that of Cherie Blair? Why not make that one - perhaps because the argument falls flat?

The Queen does indeed have a role in the government of the UK but one that is extremely limited, and claiming that she's been involved in every major and most minor decisions by the Prime Minister is more than a bit of a stretch. But hey, I'm willing to bet that the Queen at least has a security clearance.

If behind the scenes, day to day access to the Presidency is really such meaningful "background", then the White House Chief of Staff is head and shoulders a better position from which to gain such "background". Clinton's list? Mack McLarty, Leon Panetta, Erskine Bowles and John Podesta. Even if you rolled all four into one person, would you dare advance any credible argument that such a person has the "background" to be a good president? They all had security clearances too.

I think one of Noah's larger points is that exposure (which I argue is a better word than your less neutral "background") to the president does not presidential experience make. In fact, no job prepares one for the presidency except for the presidency, and we have term limits to explicitly prevent the American people from leaning too much on such experience in judging future presidents. Hillary has exposure throug marriage, not experience.

LOL

The Queen of England would be a train wreck as a PM. Consider her idiotic reaction to Diana's death. Consider the fact that she has no idea what common citizens of her realm go through.

Wow. You Hillary fanatics will come up with any terrible argument you can to support a woman for president, apparently.

The analogy to the Queen is plain ludicrous, both in terms of what the Queen's experience and capabilites actually are, and in terms of how they relate to Senator Clinton. How is being a wife the equivalent of being the Queen?

And since when did the United States become a monarchy? If Clinton is elected president and serves two terms, that will mean that for 28 years, only two families controlled the White House. What then, Jeb, then Chelsea, on the grounds that, merely being part of a president's family makes you qualified to be president?

I used to like Senator Clinton when she was First Lady. She is smart and capable and if she is elected, she will probably do well enough. As something of a yellow dog Democrat, I will undoubtedly vote for her in November if she is on the ballot. But I find I dislike her more every day now. I don't want someone who knows where the bodies are buried and I don't want to relieve the 90's. It's a new century. We need new leadership.

Are you seriously comparing Hillary Clinton's experience with that of the Queen? The only thing Hillary Clinton and the Queen have in common is the assumption of royalty.

I don't think anyone is denying Hillary's experience. I do think her experience is being tauted as something that is most certainly is not. Anyway, there's a distinct difference between "knowing how the parts fit together" and "knowing how to grease the machine." It is true that Senator Obama does not have a background comparable with Senator Clinton. That, as it goes, is a good thing.

Well, Richmond, you can lead a horse to water... The apparent point you were making between the role of the British monarch and the American first lady, that both have vast influence and knowledge without responsibility for decisions, has been woefully (or willfully) lost.

As for people who are afraid of a return to the 90s, perhaps jettisoning the hate, venom and name-calling might prevent that.