I really don't understand the basis of this critique by Hillary:
Her candidacy on the line, Clinton signaled that her central "experience" argument would remain unchanged. "It is time that we moved from good words to good works, from sound bites to sound solutions"...
But as this is still the campaign, and not the governing stage, than, well, all we have to really go on is words. If Hillary really means that we shouldn't pay attention to the candidates' words, then we shouldn't pay much attention to her ads, debate performances, or non-concession concession speeches either.
If Hillary means to contrast her experience to his, than she has to point to any "good works" she can claim that Obama is lacking. But as I've said before, and as Ezra also suggests, neither Hillary's or Obama's U.S. Senate stays has been all that notable. Hillary has spent most of hers voting for a war against Iraq and a war-like resolution against Iran, while Obama has spent half of his Senate term campaigning for president.