One was a state Senator in Illinois....period.

The other spent 8 years in the White House with her criminal husband; lots of executive experience there.

If the New Republic article shows anything, it shows the endemic provincialism of that swamp of mediocrity: Washington, DC

What evidence is there that McCain, Clinton, Edwards or any of the other senatorial candidates are capable of holding an executive rather than a legislative office???

Lincoln's presidential qualifications were indeed thin by modern standards. But he was indeed a moderately important figure in Illinois state politics (as a Whig) for several years, and in addition to his tenure in the Illinois state legislature, Lincoln also served one term as a Congressman in the U.S. House of Representatives from 1847-1849, during which he was a noted but ineffective opponent of Pres. Polk and the Mexican-American War. His opinions on that war and, in particular, over the admission of Texas (a slave state) as a consequence of it, have some relevance to his later political development and career. And of course, his debates with Stephen A. Douglas during the course of the 1858 Illinois state election (with Douglas' U.S. Senate seat re-appointment by the state legislature thereby indirectly also in play) are what brought Lincoln to broader public attention both within and outside of his home state as a rising star within the then-brand-new Republican Party.

The mayor of New York City rivals the governor of New York in terms of power wielded. The mayor governs a city of millions with an organizational structure not unlike the nation's federal system. The population of the city includes people from all over the country and every nation on Earth who speak every known language. The mayor frequently meets with foreign dignitaries.

I doubt that you could find a better job to prepare for being the president, other than the governor of a large state such as California or Florida.