Hillary would likely get off to a faster start, and her willingness to sweat the details would improve her batting average on getting those details right. But even though the "scar tissue," as she calls it, from her failed 1994 health-care plan may make her a more battle-hardened Washington operator, it could also cause her to shrink from confrontation and settle for too little. And for all of her collegiality with Republican senators and small legislative wins, no major bill yet bears her name. She is an unproven conciliator.

If Clinton fails to win the nomination—now a distinct possibility—a big reason will be that she never fully inhabited the real Hillary, who has been, as her husband accurately put it, a "change agent" at every step of her life. Instead, faced with an opponent who thoroughly embodies change, she has often come across like the cautious candidate of the Washington Democratic establishment, afraid to jeopardize her chances in the general election by sounding strident. Her best bet is to reconnect with the real Hillary, the one who spoke out passionately for children.

If only the strengths of the front runners could be melded. The strongest president would combine an instinct for a well-timed fight with an inspirational message of reconciliation and the doggedness and sophistication needed to get big things done. It's like a game of mix and match. Could a President Edwards, who settled plenty of cases before trial, mend enough fences among members of Congress to get bills through, despite what they see as a do-nothing Senate term and an unwillingness to cooperate? Could a President Obama prove himself a natural at confronting hostile partisan fire? Could a President Clinton go over the heads of Washington insiders and rally the American people to her side?

MO matters. The candidates' histories and campaign themes don't always help us predict how they would actually operate in office (e.g., George W. Bush), but they're the only clues we've got.

© 2007