Agreed. I'm glad that someone is pointing this out. Additionally, I would add, by the time Senator Clinton made her run she was just such a brand name in and of herself. Most women candidates have to explain who they are, when the first thing most know about them is their gender. Senator Clinton, as you highlight, had the rare ability to be known for who she was, prior to becoming a female candidate.

There have been successful female leaders though who weren't assisted by spouses or parents, ala Margaret Thatcher. At the end of the day it's about merit and substance not about relationships.

So, this seems to be telling us, that the average woman should not have high aspirations.
If a Clinton, with her immense financial muscle and tremendous political clout could not make it, what hope does the average woman have?
It would be interesting to know how a lady can overcome this challenge.

seems that you want to say something about the opp. to be a president for females.

How sad that Ms. Kellerman, who is recognized as one of the best minds in leadership, could write such an anemic commentary. This is a very complicated issue should never have been presented as a leadership soundbite.

First and foremost, for one to analyze Ms. Clinton's candidacy, one must take a macro view of her life. And from the American political perspective. While I cannot present the information in detail because of the nature of this format, I'll only present a few specific highlights. There is much more that should be said.

1. Ms. Clinton made the persona that became Bill Clinton from his run for the governor of Arkansas to his U.S. presidential victories to his time in office. She understands the American political system very well in her own right.
2. Her run for senator of New York was no different from the run Bobby Kennedy made. Both used the "family" name to get on the ballot. However, both campaigned in ways that said they were running themselves on their own merits. Since becoming a U.S. senator, Ms. Clinton has used strong networking abilities to be a presence in the chambers. She is vocal and active in her role as senator.
3. Bill Clinton hurt Hilliary Clinton and did not help in her bid for the presidency. Not only by the previous transgressions while he was President but in his remarks in South Carolina which, I believe, became the turning point in her bid for the White House.

I think Ms. Kellerman fell into the worst gender bias by stereotyping the Hilliary Clinton campaign. And other female leaders for that matter. Taking examples of female leaders out of historical and political contexts to make a point is shameful. As one who teaches leadership as well, I believe this type of "throw it on the wall and see if it sticks" analysis only sets back the discussion of women and leadership in the U.S.

Clinton's campaign will make it easier for women to envision running, in the same way Obama's campaign will make it easier for African-Americans to envision running. Granted her position as first lady gave her invaluable name recognition, but neither her election as senator nor her strong candidacy for president were handed to her. It's not as if she were the poor unfortunate wife of a sitting senator, and was handed his seat upon an untimely death. Her current success is built on her own "competence and capacity," qualities that Ms. Kellerman attempts to marginalize.

Who, however, are the women and African-Americans who will follow their footsteps 4-8 years from now? If no women or African-Americans emerge as candidates in the next election cycle, it still won't prove Ms. Kellerman's point. Clinton and Obama were unique candidates at a unique moment in history, either of whom would have been considered a step up from Bush's laggard last days.

I wonder what lessons women will draw from the successful Obama campaign. Does his (apparently conscious) decision to avoid identity politics offer an example that will be emulated?

I am very disappointed in this article. The inital sentence especially reads like a tacky marketing effort aimed simply at directing people to your website, and lacking the substantial and thoughtful content I normally see in your magazine.

Instead of diminishing Hillary's own abilities what if we considered how much she added to Bill's success when he ran for president. I have been amazed at the backlash from women against her from the very beginning. Would she have been more credible if she had been single? In addition to her spousal responsibilites she has been a successful attorney, a senator, and a presidential nominee. Look at men who run. Many have enormous wealth from famiies. Do we discredit them? I find Ms. Kellerman's comments false and worse than, that diminishing of women in general.

I would like to see sources and/or empirical evidence to substantiate your argument. I believe that most families (i.e., spouses, siblings, children) would rise to the occasion to support their loved ones,regardless if the need was ambitious or not. I will say that I agree that she "may" have benefitted from her husband's former position, however, it does not warrant you stating that any person would have "zero" chance outside of the relationship factor...you still need to have intelligence, character, and charisma.

Absolutly right on the money!! She rose to power on her husbands name. Took credit for anything positive that occurred during his term in office yet claimed no resposibility for his failings or hers (Health Care).

I would argue that she would have neither the position or status she enjoys if it were not for her husband!! I give you that she is a very hard worker.

The irony of it all is that her accomplishments are the result of her husband and her failure to achieve the nomination may be partially due to her husband also!!!

I have said in time past, HRC is nothing without Bill and i do agree with all said in this article which is BRILLIANT TO THE POINT!!

There are loads of women out there who through dint of hard work, fair competition and grace have achieved far better that Hilarry has without any exergeration or leaning on some husband whose got political clout

Would Barbara Kellerman have the same vision if it was the other way around? If a male cadidate -who is a husband of a former woman top executive or even president- would have run for presidency?
Probably not. So just stop the discussion about men and women. It will take another generation before we (women) get the credits.
To all the women in the world: just go after your ambitions, take Hillary as a role model for what ever you like, get inspired and just do it!
Inge, Amsterdam, Netherlands

you have got to be kidding...thanks so much for dragging us back into the 1950's...time to abandon the "women are inferior to men" attitude and enter the 21st century! Ambition with the credentials to back them up is what motivates successful, strong women.

I have no doubt that the United States is ready to elect a qualified woman president. Hillary Clinton was not and is not that woman.

Her professional/political successes are due to strategic exploitation of opportunities provided to her via her husband’s career. This is not the profile of an independent, critical thinker.

Hillary’s first concession speech, “What I Want”, says it all. She is an egotistical, arrogant, angry woman who thinks her gender entitles her to our support. She is wrong.

Barack is an inspiration to me for different reasons. From overcoming diversity as the son of a servant to his parent’s divorce at an early age Barack has shown courage and strong will. From his academic achievements to his successful political career he has shown intelligence and determination. From his advocacy work to his literary accomplishments he has shown his desire to be a voice for the people.

What I find most inspiring about Barack is when he was a little boy he dared to dream big and have high aspirations. Many kids utter the simple statement “I want to be president when I get older”, but very few hold on to that dream.

Most people view Barack winning the democratic nomination as an accomplishment because he is the first black man that has a real chance of becoming the president. I personally never viewed Barack Obama as a black man. Race should have nothing to do with the ability to successfully lead our country. I believe Barack’s ethnicity has given him a unique perspective on life and subsequently, the ability to be open minded. One thing I learned as I became a Christian is it is truly not the color of your skin that makes you a good man or woman; it is what God has instilled within you.

It is the true American dream that anyone who dares to dream can achieve their goals with hard work and determination and the proper care and support. This country is great not because a black man or a women can run for presidency, but because if you dare to have a dream you can accomplish it.

A child can achieve any goal if you give them the right tools and environment to grow. This is why I am so passionate about advocating for children’s rights. The future really does belong to them and we need to foster the well being of and education of our youth.

Gender aside, there exist models of behavior that are indicators of personal preferences of "leadership." The Human Relations Model that is focused on self-awareness and conflict resolution; the Internal Process Model that that manifests in "control environments" with coordinating and monitoring; the Rational Goal Model that focuses on exclusively on productivity and profit through competition; and the Open systems model that stresses adaptability and external support. Hillary sans husband, daughter, gender, and some unfortunate life history (which we all have to some degree) appears to have quite a balance of the above
models in her personal inventory. These indicators prove nothing except to "indicate" that Hillary just might be a candidate for any leadership role calling for a balanced set of talents. I'm certain of the pains of stereotyping; remember the Federal equal Pay act of 1963? This was to give us a fair and equitable balance between males and females in work performed at any level. Not there yet are we? Thanks for the hearing. John Griffith

Two things: 1) relationships do matter for men or women--you need only to look to the Kennedy or Bush clans as examples. 2) Clinton got this chance because of decades of calculating political maneuvering--not good or bad, but that is a political reality. Ms. Kellerman is factually correct that it would be very hard to anyone else to replicate that life experience.

However, I would offer that we look to leaders (male or female) for inspiration to move ourselves ahead, not to replicate their lives. To paraphrase another Senator from NY (RFK for you youngsters out there) Senator Clinton inspired people to "dream of things that never were and ask why not?" RFK did not ask people to be like him, but to reach for a higher ideal than themselves. That is the vision and the inspiration we want & need of leaders. I did not support Sen Clinton's candidacy, but if people find inspiration in it to progress this country, to reach out beyond themselves to a higher purpose, to strive to a grand goal then that's a pretty good legacy in my opinion.

Appreciate the resonses to my blog - both yay and nay.

For the record, the potential benefits of family ties are obviously gender neutral. To wit: the 43rd president of the United States. Never in a million years would he have made it to the White House without being closely related, very closely related, to the 41st president of the United States.

Question to CVN:

Is Obama an African-American or Biracial? Is he pandering to African-Americans to gain votes?

Is he not a child of an African-American father and White mother. His classifying himself as an African-American is therefore a mis-nomer!!

Ms Kellerman should not have mesmerised her thought in such a blatent manner.i would like to point out 2 major points that would highlight my portion of say
i)Agreed too her pinpointed finger that Senator Clinton has to some extent utilised her husband and Former President Bill Clinton`s image.but lets be frank to this very point.How many First lady`s have been able to do so?it takes a lot of courage and to endure for such a campaign.Ms kellerman is clicking out the point that for running an election campaign in a country like AMerica needs a lot of courage and will.Does that now define the Term "Leadership" for the upcoming generation of young woman?
ii)we all are aware that she had graduated from Yale Law school.it was she that had backed up Bill for his Presidency campaign.Besides, Bill has himself admitted quite a number of times that it would not have been possible without Hillary.It is not always written down that to be a leader you have to balance family by having a young kid.When scandals were bloomin all over regarding Bill, she stood strong and stuck up to him.is that anyway away from leadership?
iii)Family Values-No daughter would not have been brought up incredibly well without her mom`s support.
Ms kellerman should not have made such claims without penetrating these integral factors.
I think according to my point of view Senator Clinton although she has accepted defeat in front of Barack Obama,yet has fought brave no less than a MAN.
she should be any role model for women who want to compose their life with ambition,will power and bravery.

The article focused on only one small aspect of leadership competencies - personal values. The values discussed are not what most people are looking for in a leader anyway. Most people look for honesty, forward looking, inspiring, and competent, according to organziational surveys (Kouzes and Posner). While I give a hoot about Hillary, when analyzing leadership role models, a holistic approach would be better - meaning, look not only at the right values, but beyond them as well, including emotional intelligence, transformational ability, situational adaptability anf flexibility, teaming, etc.

I'm by no means defending Hillary's ability to lead, but instead defending the criteria by which we evaluate potential leaders.

I felt the commentary is very fair, well-written and accurate in its assessment. However, I think there is one point that should have been mentioned because it points out one of the major shortcomings that, in my opinion, would eliminate Hillary as a model for anyone (man or woman) who was going to run for political office.

Hillary's outright lie about "dodging sniper fire upon landing in Bosnia" clearly showed that she would be willing to do anything, including embellish her own stories with lies, to achieve her end game (winning the nomination and getting elected). Like so many others in Washington, she was corrupted by her own lust for power and in the process, lost sight of the importance of being a character-based leader...she chose to lie for her own political gain.

Now, I am not so naive to believe that each and every candidate has not, in some way, shape or form, exaggerated the truth in speaking of their experiences, whatever, but Hillary went way overboard on this one.

I think all of us in America are tired of the lying that goes on in the political mainstream. Republicans, Democrats, Independents, men or women, it makes no difference, we want leaders that are honest and genuine. Today, effective leadership (speaking in general terms) is about being real and earning trust as much as it is anything else. That kind of leadership begins with honesty as a foundation.

As Warren Bennis has preached for years, "Managers do things right. Leaders do the right thing." Being honest when assessing a business situation, when speaking with subordinates, when running for public office IS the only way to conduct oneself. It IS doing the right thing.

Certainly i don't get it! What is Barbara saying here? That women should not aspire to higher levels of authority and responsibilities or that marriage and a happy family life would cause the ambition of talented women to be abandoned?

This might sound a little bit off the mark, but i know for sure-just like majority people across the World that Hilary gave a good fight. It is the window that the World is waiting for the women take the right of place.

The road to leadership has various path. Ms. Clinton understand the political system very well and what it takes to get there. She started her political life from her school days and I think she deserves to be a role model to other women who are looking forward to get to her present position and even beyond.

I don't expect you to run her down with such an article like this. She is a very unique candidate and I hope women will use her experience and courage to be a turning point in their pursuit for excellence.

Hillary Clinton's experience like any elected officials experience is collective. Though it is name recognition and time in the public forum that catapults the candidate, vision, mission and execution must drive results. Women now hold elected positions at local, state and national offices in greater numbers. The model that gives competitive advantage to a woman seeking the highest office of the executive branch in the federal system will mature. Let us be patient. WE THE PEOPLE, the greatest network any candidate seeking elected office can have, will see her elected.

I agree with the author, but it isn't only true of Hillary. Would either George or Jeb Bush have achieved anything in public office if not for the name recognition and connections provided by their father? And delving down into the congressional and state levels of politics, it is even more prevalent where you see these multi-generational political dynasties.

I am no Hillary supporter but I don't think its fair to hold her to a higher standard than any other celebrities who leveraged name recognition into a political office despite seemingly no qualifications for the job. Reagan and Arnold on paper were not remotely qualified to govern California. Hillary's misfortune was her timing in choosing to run when Obama did, and executing a poorly run campaign. On paper, neither of them is particularly qualified to be president.

What a scary thought! Barbara Kellerman in charge of teaching young, smart, well-connected (helps to get in to Harvard) women leadership skills.

Following her premise I guess it's easy for us to utilize the male candidates as role models as we can easily replicate the money, education, personal circumstances, and non-marital connections of all the other presidents? I guess it's easy to become a POW and survive years in a POW camp and come home a survivor with a mindset to go into politics. Or perhaps it's easier to replicate having a peripatetic mother who marries an African and then an Indonesian and raises you in a multi-cultural atmosphere. Or maybe it's easier to marry a successful man who loves you and supports you - ya think?

Becoming a president takes extraordinary circumstances and each campaign is peculiarly idiosyncratic. Maybe Bill Clinton wouldn't have been so successful without Hillary. Perhaps Chelsea is who she is because of Hillary. Perhaps Barbara Kellerman should learn to think outside the box. Am surprised at such a one-sided, sexist, old-school way of thinking about a married woman. Hillary is an inspiration, Barbara Kellerman is not.

As far as familial connections, let's see:
President Bush - son of President Bush
Prince Charles (next in line to the throne) - Queen Elizabeth
FDR - cousin of TDR

The argument of kinship is fallacious and denigrating to all married women - suggesting that just because you're married to someone powerful doesn't mean that you aren't powerful and full of potential yourself (maybe that's what attracted your husband in the first place).

Somebody please fire Barbara Kellerman and hire Hillary Clinton to do the job correctly.

I applaude Ms. Kellerman for having the courage to clearly state the truth. I also feel additional comments are needed to resolve issues still facing women aspiring to lead. Mrs. Clinton did demonstrate that when given the chance women can and should stand equal to their male counterparts. The question is...how do women accomplish this without the aid of "a bubba?"

Following Kellerman's premise I guess it's easy for us to utilize the male candidates as role models as we can easily replicate the money, education, personal circumstances, and non-marital connections of all the other presidents? I guess it's easy to become a POW and survive years in a POW camp and come home a survivor with a mindset to go into politics. Or perhaps it's easier to replicate having a peripatetic mother who marries an African and then an Indonesian and raises you in a multi-cultural atmosphere. Or maybe it's easier to marry a successful man who loves you and supports you - ya think?

Becoming a president takes extraordinary circumstances and each campaign is peculiarly idiosyncratic. Maybe Bill Clinton wouldn't have been so successful without Hillary. Perhaps Chelsea is who she is because of Hillary. This article is such a one-sided, sexist, old-school way of thinking about a married woman. Hillary is an inspiration.

As far as familial connections, let's see:
President Bush - son of President Bush
Prince Charles (next in line to the throne) - Queen Elizabeth
FDR - cousin of TDR
etc.

The argument of kinship is fallacious and denigrating to all married women - suggesting that just because you're married to someone powerful doesn't mean that you aren't powerful and full of potential yourself (maybe that's what attracted your husband in the first place).

Somebody please hire Hillary Clinton to teach the women of Harvard about leadership because judging on the basis of this article, it seems to be a curriculum sorely lacking.

I would have to agree with the comments who showed disappointment in this article. First of all, for Ms Kellerman to blatantly start by saying that '69% of American people think wrong' just throws off the whole article's credibility in my mind.
I find it interesting that Ms Kellerman is teaching classes for 'Women in Leadership'. I don't get the sense that I'd be very inspired taking one of her classes.
I think some of the points in the article about the challenges of leadership are true, but they apply to anyone who aspire to be one. This article almost says that if as a women you have leadership role aspirations you need to be coming from a wellknown, wealthy family, have a supportive husband or no husband, have a supportive family or no family... These might have been factors in some examples (referred to in this article), but it's not that if you didn't have these, you might as well forget about it.

Well, I feel inspired by Mrs. Clinton and Mr. Obama's courage to run for presidency. Is this what it represents an 'American Dream?' In addition, I feel that they show all minority groups in America to have courage, as Gandhi said, "be the Change you wish to see in the world."
I also wonder what would Mrs. Eleanor Roosevelt, President Lincoln and Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. say to them if they were alive today?

Anyone knows.......

When an opponent consistently gets plus 60 percent votes from their same race, there is a lot going on here.Bad enough to have a gender problem, but his last election was a racist one.

I was saddened to see African Americans vote race. It wasn't until the rest of America saw the results, that people started voting race.

Seems we all went backwards. Sad.

Why take apart Hillary? I mean, why? Are we jealous that she just happens to be an ex-first lady? That she holds a law degree and is an excellent speaker on her feet? That she is ineptly familiar with foreign issues? That her husband knew how to take advantage of a rising economy and support Rubinstein?

I say, more power to her.

One of the things I found most disappointing about the current presidential election is the emphasis on race and gender.
There are so many, many more important issues to discuss (e.g. who will be the best leader through the hard economic times ahead, who can repair the image of US foreign policy, how to prevent the US from loosing its competitive advantage in a globalized world,...). Instead America seems unable to let go of the past, universities contribute to this by offering 'gender studies' programs, race is a commonly used excuse for just about anything and constantly brought up whether it has something to do with the issue at hand or not.
When will people stop beating the dead horse and open their eyes to topics that can inspire positive change by focusing on things than can be changed and done to improve upon society.
The article had the promise to shed an interesting light on a gender and leadership issue but it failed to "inspire anything positive". Now it is put in 'black and white' that it's just about impossible to obtain top leadership positions for us, average by status but ambitious, educated and hard working, women. Too sad that a women that has the position and audience to be heard/read would not push this a step further.

I am very disappointed in Ms. Kellerman's article. Only after many critical Blog posts did she mention what was so obviously missing from her article. If George W were not the son of George Bush Senior he would not have stood a prayer of a chance to be elected to the White House. He failed at almost every business he attempted. Is it any wonder he can't run our economy. Why doesn't Ms. Kellerman write, "Bush: no role model for leadership. Men on track for leadership roles should assess Bush's presidential record." Of course that wouldn't be nearly as interesting as pushing the 'women in leadership hot button'. I have never heard of a man being discouraged from a leadership role because he needed to protect his life's 'balance'. Between the White House and the predominantly male Congress it is time to recognize that we can do a better job. Qualified candidates that are female, or of non-white ethnic backgrounds should be encouraged to carry the leadership torch. More than 50% of this country is female. The fastest growing ethnic classes are what we historically have labeled minorities. I am a white male over 40 and I am not threatened by a diverse government. It is good for business. Let politics learn from this. Let government of the people, that represent the people, RESEMBLE its people.

Barabars's insights may eventually get to the core of leadership sequence. Was Jeff Immelt a protoge of Jack Welch? Does someone always clear the path for the leader to be? Is there a principle that most leaders are tempered in the hearth as they walked alongside their mentor?

But here is a question that has me befuddled. Where are the successors to the female leaders who followed in trails blazed by their male mentors? Barbara points out that significant male leaders helped forge the meddle of their female protoges. Shouldn't there be male protoges following in the steps of those females who wore the crown? I can think of very few if any. Where does the model breakdown when we reverse the genders?

Barabars's insights may eventually get to the core of leadership sequence. Was Jeff Immelt a protoge of Jack Welch? Does someone always clear the path for the leader to be? Is there a principle that most leaders are tempered in the hearth as they walked alongside their mentor?

But here is a question that has me befuddled. Where are the successors to the female leaders who followed in trails blazed by their male mentors? Barbara points out that significant male leaders helped forge the meddle of their female protoges. Shouldn't there be male protoges following in the steps of those females who wore the crown? I can think of very few if any. Where does the model breakdown when we reverse the genders?

Hillary made a fatal mistake with her campaign; she tried to communicate vocally and physically like a man, and badly.

She was not speaking on the breath, her breath and body were not connected, and her voice was coming from her throat and not her diaphragm. This made her voice too loud and too strained when she spoke, which is repellent for an audience and sounds like you are continuously defending yourself. By not making this connection her voice was tight, as was her body language this includes her facial expressions. She looked desperate to be heard at times.

We should all aim for an open free voice, diaphragmatic breathing, and a relaxed physicality. When you do get this connection your message is be more likely to be heard, more importantly listened to, and then acted on. Man or woman!

I don't believe "some 69% of the people think wrong". I believe Ms. Kellerman is thinking "wrong".
I am not here to debate whether Hillary Clinton would or would not have made a good president. That is not the element of "role model" we are talking about. The question is, did the mere fact of here running for president, and the debating and extended primary season, make it easier or harder for a women to run in the future? And I believe the answer to that is she clearly at least cracked open some doors.
I will use a comparison from personal experience. I spent 11 years in the military and a leaders, from 1987-1998. When I first joined as a young lieutenant, there were basically two types of senior women leader's that had been successful and therefore made it to the ranks of LTC and above (in specialties other than nursing). Those 2 models, to stereotype, were the 1)"brass balls, play harder than the boys" type, and 2)the competent "mother" figure, who took care of everyone and got everything done with no complaining. These two archtypes were able to successfully drive their way thru the "good ole boys club" that was (and to large extent still is) the military. What this allowed, was more junior military women to see that it was possible, and therefore aspire to longer careers and greater success. With more women interested in developing careers in the field, the archetypes began fading and today you see a broader "type" of woman in the military.

I think the same holds true for high level politics. We may not 100% agree with the path that these 1st few women take to be successful, or make a "run" for the highest level positions...but the fact that they took the run...and had increasing levels of success (let's face it, Hillary did win ~50% of the democratic primary vote...which is nothing to sneeze at)make the aspirations of those coming behind seem much more desireable and achievable. So give her the credit of at least putting herself on the line to push the bar a little higher. There is a sports saying that applies..."you miss 100% of the shots you don't take"

Well said! HIllary Clinton's influential brand-name lacked charasimatic "persona" that reaches out to people unlike Barack Obama. The difference between the candidates characteristics was noticeable. For the most part, Hillary struggled to balance an arrary of mood swings in search for that innate "persona" that just didn't exist in her personality.

Further, I notice - especially in politics - a 'sports fan' mentality. Every issue is being discussed in a style to leave behind only winners and losers, being picked apart with the intention to destroy the 'opponent's' position and take home the 'victory'.
As a society this country seems to know no well-intended compromise (upfront, not after a fierce battle). With so much diversity I am surprised that people have not started seeing the benefits of including everyone to their fair share and proportion. All the time, money and effort that is spent during an election year that goes into trying to destroy the other candidate's credibility with some of the worst tactics and propaganda would serve the American people so much better by being spent on researching issues and offering solutions to problems instead of polarizing a nation time and time again. Where is the progressive nation that everybody is so proud of because it provides opportunity, freedom and (currently more an illusion of) the American Dream?
Maybe the 'over-population' of lawyers has also contributed to the winners vs. losers attitude since they are usually advocates for one side only.
Divorces are another example, more often than not fought to the bitter end with the intention to serve the biggest possible damage and hurt (revenge) to the other party involved.
Of course 'winning or loosing', 'right or wrong' manifests itself in the issues of race, religion and gender too.
Is this thinking also what contributes to this nation heading from war to war? One cannot always be the winner but make many, many enemies by trying to beat everybody else down to losers.

Think about it - you will see this phenomenon everywhere.
What can we do to learn to compromise for the best possible outcome for both sides?

I agree with those of you who were very disappointed by this article. I think I'm actually offended as an aspiring leader.
Not only does it diminish Hillary's hard work and success that she earned on her own, but it really gives me the impression that as a woman my success will be determined by not what I bring to the table, but by some other male leader and my ability to ride his coattails. I'll admit that there were plenty of moments when I thought Hillary could have handled the campaign so much better. But to take that brief moment in time and apply such a blanket statement for other women leaders, for a reputable publication no less!, feels like we do not have an advocate in Ms. Kellerman, but an obstacle.

I agree that relationships matter and there have been great examples of that given. But, I fear for the future if this article and its author are Harvards example of female leadership. Hilary Clinton earned her way to where she is today. Many would argue that perhaps Bill Clinton would not have been president in the first place without her guiding his way. Looking at her life I see long term strategic planning to reach her goal, serious dedication to her goals and incredible patience. She didn't just fall into the place she is, she placed herself there. Recognizing that she lived in a society that might not be ready for a female president, she strategized carefully what her moves should be. I think she is a brillant strategist. The timing of the birth of her daughter; the choice to have one and not five; even the choice to grow stronger and stay committed her her marriage when she has been given every reason to leave. She has shown great strategic planning/thinking, incredible stregnth and extraordinary long term vision. I think she is an incredible example of a female leader.

She has had incredible support from her family and that is admirable. Those are the families that stay together; those who are committed to eachothers goals. The Clintons are a team and always have been. To me it is very much like a couple who works to send eachother to college. If the choice is to send the man to college first because it will be better for whatever reason, it does not make his wife less of a college graduate because she goes second.

I think she has earned her way to the White House and she is supremely qualified. I too wish we lived in a world that gender and reace did not play a role but we do. I would bet 9 out of 10 people who did not vote for Hillary Clinton did not support her because of her gender or the fact that they did not support Bill Clinton. Seems to me, this "relationship" hurts her as much as it helps her.

I'm appalled at this article and have to agree with others who voiced their concern about this perspective being passed along to young aspiring women. In addition to Margaret Thatcher, Golda Meir was an influential leader in the middle east which was no small task at the time; nor did she ride the coattails of her husband...she earned the right to be Prime Minister.

Gender, in my opinion, is not the issue. It is a matter of style and the way in Senator Clinton demonstrated her leadership ability (or lack thereof). While she certainly demonstrated her determination and brilliance, her inability to listen (which surfaced during the debates), apparent arrogance and political maneuverings were her downfall. Additionally, she failed to exhibit leadership qualities that transcend age, culture and race: inspiring a shared vision, inclusivity and authenticity to name a few of such attributes.

That said, I do wonder, how Senator Clinton would have faired if she had exhibited the behaviors of successful leaders. Is there such a deeply ingrained attitude towards the way inwhich women "should" behavior that influences our worldview? Case in point being the type of criticism she received about her pant suits. I never see Senator Obama (and I'm a supporter) without what appears to be the same blue tie, yet no one criticizes him for that!

Teaching in an MBA program, I notice that gender is becoming an increasingly transparent issue with the Gen Yers. However, there are lingering cultural prejudices that exist coming from both men and certainly women towards women. It's those prejudices that need to be surfaced and addressed.

I believe the article accomplished its objective...to create deep thought. Lest we forget, the point is, in my opinion, who are the women leaders out there that should be viewed as role models? Clearly Hillary's popularity is based on name recognition generated largely through her association with Bill Clinton. Nothing wrong with that. What calls to question is what is her real leadership capability? It is not what the media hypes up as the first serious woman candidate for the US Presidency. It is her track record in leading the country as a US Senator, which I find dubious given her voting records and bend with the wind decision making. To me, leadership is achieving/accomplishing objectives and in so doing, making unpopular decisions to do the right thing. I have not observed this with Hillary's past records.

In essensce, Ms. Kellerman is just pointing out that there are other women leaders we should look to (as I would like my daughters to do); but unfortunately, are not in the limelight nor can they sell the news.

I am so sick of people Hilary bashing. Just what, exactly, is a strong intelligent woman supposed to sound like, look like & act like? Sounds like somone has been watching too much Obermann & Matthews- I used to like them, too.

I agree with Ms. Leather.

In addition, I believe Ms.Kellerman’s argument was flawed in two aspects:

- the claim that Ms.Clinton “got to where she is through her husband” does not take into account that perhaps President Clinton might not have been as successful if it were not for his wife’s sound political and personal life-long partnership.

- the argument that the support Ms.Clinton received from her “ready, willing and able” husband and daughter is not typical for most women may be valid, but is shortsighted in not giving Ms.Clinton credit for creating a family that supports her in such a way.

I appreciate the title of the article and Ms.Kellerman’s invitation for the reader to think before assuming anyone as a role model. In fact, I consider Mr.Obama much more of a role model than Ms.Clinton, but not for the reasons mentioned in the article.

Certainly a different perspective on Hillary's candidacy and almost near selection as the Democratic candidate. While women and afro americans have run for the Presidency before, what distuinguished this democratic choice pitting voters with race against gender (if it is not too simplistic) is that previous ones were women or afro american candidates but these ones were Presidential candidates who happened to be afro american or a woman.
Secondly chances for a woman candidate would rise if women issues were at the forefront.Todate there is great participation by women but women issues are not the key ones. Then the arithmetic and social engineering will fall in place automatically to elect a woman president without the backing of a powerful spouse on Capitol Hill or Wall Street.
That day will come soon.

A previous contributer stated my point better than I could have by saying "her inability to listen (which surfaced during the debates), apparent arrogance and political maneuverings were her downfall"

I think Ms. Kellerman and many of the other contributors here are simply sheltered from reality in the cocoon of academia. It seems very arrogant for Ms. Kellerman to tell 69% of the American public they are wrong. Lets put our advanced degrees aside for a moment and bring our ego down to reality.

Hillary Clinton had this nomination locked up before the race started and she gave it away. Nothing to do with gender, or family name, or background, it was all COMMUNICATION AND PERCEPTION.

And the disgusting anti-woman bashing continues, even after conceding. Shame on you.