You're trying imply that Clinton's accomplishments are a bigger deal than Sanders.

No, I'm really not. I'm responding to a comment about Clinton's effectiveness with some sources that place her squarely as "average." I am not implying anything. The article linked compares them, and you can take issue with that; but, not with me.

The reality is that very few politicians pass legislation that can be described as truly "significant".

I'm glad we agree.

Now, I just want to try to be clear here: You're arguing that because "peer review in political science is probably as unbiased as peer review in economics," we should therefore discount published research in favor of articles posted on Alternet.org?

First, that makes me wonder how familiar you actually are with peer review in economics. Certainly, there are a host of "orthodox" (read: broadly neoliberal) journals in economics, but there are also very well respected "heterodox" journals as well. Take, for example, the Cambridge Journal of Economics which is well regarded and has a history of publishing articles from a diverse spectrum of theory and methodology. While I completely agree that Economics - as a field - tends to be dominated by what we might consider neoliberal positions, I think neither that my ideological disagreement with said position invalidates their peer review process, nor that the field is bereft of alternative positions.

However, perhaps you were thinking of a specific demonstration of the biased process that you can link? I'm always open to new information.

Second, you state that the research was "probably hired by a left-wing foundation." The neat thing about published research is that you have to disclose funding sources.

That research was supported by two internal organizations (one at UVA and one at Vanderbilt) and the William and Flora Hewlett Foundation's Madison Initiative. That Initiative describes itself as such: "It’s important to note what this initiative is not: As a private charitable foundation, the Hewlett Foundation never tries to influence election outcomes; we are strictly prohibited from doing so. Moreover, our approach is explicitly agnostic on particular policy outcomes outside of democracy-enhancing reforms. Indeed, to proceed otherwise would miss the point. The health of a representative democracy ultimately depends on whether its legislative institutions are working in ways that the citizens support."

Third, cherry-picking legislation to fit your narrative is intellectually dishonest. I agree that Clinton sponsored a host of meaningless bills, but she also did things like "Expand contraceptive services for low-income women" and "Provide funding for social services for noncitizens."

Finally, even if the peer-review process was flawed (which you've provided no evidence of), it's still more review than a post on Alternet.org faces (it's worth noting that I like and read alternet.org regularly, they just aren't a peer-reviewed empirical study, they're thought-pieces on what amounts to an internet blog).

My point remains not to tout Clinton as some paragon of the Senate, nor to discuss her vis-a-vis Sanders at all (who I, personally, also feel was about "average"). It's to state that while in the Senate Clinton was about average as a politician and to provide a few resources to support that claim.