Zach Roth has an interesting rebuttal to my argument that Hillary would make a great Senate majority leader:
I've been talking to alot of Republican staffers in the Senate for a forthcoming story, and almost all of them have stressed the extent to which Bill Frist's presidential aspirations have compromised his ability to run the Senate. The very qualities that made Frist seem like an attractive candidate in 2002 -- his telegenic presence, his communication skills, his ability to serve as an appealing spokesman for the party -- have in fact made colleagues resentful, often justifiably, that he's hogging scarce media attention for himself, and that he's got one eye on his presidential run. In response, for their next leader they've turned to a guy -- Mitch McConnell -- with no aspirations to higher office, or notable charisma. And on the Democratic side, Harry Reid has been largely successful as leader without ever being a very good communicator. Instead, he's proved himself a master of parliamentary maneuvering, as when he humiliated Frist by shutting down the Senate to force debate on the manipulation of intelligence on Iraq.
Successful Senate leaders (and the Dems have to be thinking about being in the majority soon, if not in January) in this hyper-partisan age aren't the media stars. They're the ones who defer to colleagues, remain largely behind the scenes, and understand the rules well enough to use them to their party's advantage. Hillary is more Frist than McConnell or Reid.
I'd suggest that we're dealing with entirely too few data points here. Bob Dole was a terrific Senate leader in addition to a party star. But the question here is causal: Is it Frist's telegenicism, charisma (snicker), or communication skills that make him a poor majority leader? Or is it his thirst for higher office, his willingness to warp the Senate schedule to accommodate those dreams, his inattention to parliamentary maneuvers and lack of interest in remaining in the position? I'd argue quite the latter -- that's why I believe that no one in the congressional leadership should be able to run for president less than four years after they vacate the position. The concept of Hillary as majority leader relies on her deciding to inhabit and excel at the position, not use it as a launching ground to the presidency. The question is, if she made that decision, would her skills serve her well? I think so.
