Senators being President

Martin Frost is not a someone I follow on a regular basis so I don't know much about him other than this story about senators possible being good presidents.

Senators do deal with foreign policy on a regular basis. Maybe electing someone with a demanding job like being a U.S. senator is not such a bad idea after.

I would whole hardly disagree with him on it though. I have never liked the idea of a senator being president. The biggest reason I am against it is because they really don't make decisions not the type of decisions a president, governors or even businessmen make. Senators get involved with a lot of committees, they make a lot of compromises and backroom deals and in truth accomplish very little on their own. They tend to focus on legalism and minor details without the greater/big picture view.

Martin Frank seems to think that sitting senators aren't elected because they don't have the time to campaign properly.

Thus it should come as no great surprise that no sitting member of the
United States Senate has been elected president since John F. Kennedy in 1960. Senators have very demanding schedule...

While I think it has more to do with this second part.

... and they face the addition issue of actually having to cast
public votes on very controversial issues during the course of the
campaign.

They have to cast vote not just during but their past voting record comes in to play. John Kerry got cast as a flip flopper because of his voting record but almost any senator could be cast in the same light (except Obama because he really hasn't done anything). Even "Mr One Term" John Edwards got caught in this with his vote for action against Iraq. Hillary is caught up in this too. This is the reason, IMHO, why senators have a hard time, their records can be distorted too easy while still telling the truth. Senators have nuances and that is a bad thing to have as a presidential candidate.