Good Point!

Brad DeLong at his blog:

Endorsing Hillary Rodham Clinton

At this point, [Hillary Clinton] has been a successful Secretary of State, ran an almost-good-enough presidential nomination campaign, and been an effective Senator. And she was an ineffective policy-development presidential assistant back in 1993-1994. That's more experience in more different roles with more success than Barack Obama had had, than George W. Bush had had, than Ronald Reagan had had, than Jimmy Carter had had, and than John F. Kennedy had had when they faced the electorate. That's successful experience in more different roles than Bill Clinton had had. And it's about equal in variety--and greater in success--than George H.W. Bush had had. 

And it's vastly more than the Republican candidate will have, whoever he may be. 

The only thing that could keep me from putting her at the very top would be if she has not reflected on and determined to avoid what made her so unsuccessful as health-care policy-development czar in 1993-1994. 

But I know she has.

I have been somewhat unenthusiastic about the prospect of the Clinton candidacy, especially when combined with the likelihood of another Bush candidacy - anyone who thinks there is no American aristocracy had better look again. But what DeLong says here is exactly correct, and I have to say, I do find the argument persuasive.

Hard Choices (Hillary Clinton)