Why are people compelled to grab the reigns of leadership? It's probably more complicated than this but... I think most leaders have an ego, they feel empowered, some actively seek power, and others fall into it. Some of these leaders are primarily humanitarians and some have moved into positions of political power. But the defining aspect of admirable leadership are the motivations behind it and primarily that of seeking to improve the human condition. A distinct difference I see are leaders who have spent their lives giving of themselves, idealists struggling to change the human condition for the better vs blatant opportunists mostly seeking to wield power for power's sake, and enriching themselves by controlling and stepping on others. I'm anticipating some jeers, but if you look at Hillary Clinton's life, most of it has been spent performing the humanitarian role. She did not start out in politics, did not seek politics, but was compelled by her nature to dive into humanitarian efforts helping children, women, and working class people. This is an established fact. What can you say about Trump? Nothing good, the cracks in his veneer are widening every day. Similiar to one of those Middle East dictators, he strikes me as the guy who is grabbing at power primarily based on wielding power for self enrichment and to feed his ego. Recently a list of Trump's good deeds (unverified) was posted in the forum. I have no doubt he is capable of small acts of kindness, but this must be weighed on the scale of positive versus negative. All evidence revealed so far is that the negative, how his business practices adversely effect the people around him is overwhelmingly NEGATIVE. Check out this Fortune List of the 50 greatest leaders from 2014, many of the names I have not heard of, but there are recognizable names like Gandi, Kennedy, Teresa, Pope Francis, Merkel, Lama, Jolie, King and yes Bill Clinton.