This dichotomy—between the “experienced” and “proven” presumptive nominees and the presumably inexperienced, unproven outsiders—doesn’t stand up to much scrutiny. Idol-smashing Bernie Sanders has a history of political activism that goes back to the early 1960s and the Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee. He was elected mayor of Burlington, Vermont, in 1981, and served four two-year terms, stepping down in 1989. He was elected to the US House of Representatives from Vermont in 1990, and served eight two-year terms. He was elected to the US Senate in 2006 and was re-elected in 2012, so he’s so far served nine years as a senator. That adds up to 33 years in elective office.

Hillary Clinton, by comparison, was elected to the Senate in 2000, was re-elected in 2006 and stepped down in 2009 to become secretary of State, a post she held for four years. That’s 12 years of experience in government service—a considerable amount, but considerably less than Sanders.

Yes, Clinton was deeply involved in politics as the spouse of President Bill Clinton—but if we’re going to count that experience, then we should probably count Sanders’ years of work in the civil rights and anti-war movements as well. In any case, it’s hard to make the argument that the difference between Clinton and Sanders is that one is an experienced politician and the other is not.

…

The moral is: The New York Times won’t count your experience as actual experience if it doesn’t approve of your “fringe” politics.