In some ways, comparing the leadership styles and accomplishments of Madeleine Albright and Margaret Thatcher is like the proverbial impossible comparison of apples and oranges. Thatcher led a nation; Albright merely represented hers, first to the world quasi-government known, somewhat euphemistically, as the United Nations, and later, as Secretary of State, to the world at large, United Nations or warring ones.

             One point of comparison that seems to work, however, is that both were self-made women. Another is that both had an enormous impact both within and outside of their own nation. Yet another is that, whether one admired or reviled one or the other, both have become household words. .

             Albright and Thatcher also, however, employed styles as divergent as the position of their surnames in the alphabet. Where Albright was the iron hand in the velvet glove, Thatcher was the iron hand in the glove of chain mail. Where Albright advocated what appears to be a more feminine principle in diplomacy and governance, Thatcher most often presented herself as the 'artificial man.' Following is an examination of how each of these powerful women came to a position of leadership with enormous power in global politics, and a brief assessment of their lasting influence on the conduct of nations.

             Leadership .

             It is difficult to conceive that Madeleine Albright's boss, President Bill Clinton, saw the earth through a patriarchal worldview that "now dominates globalwide dialogue" (Clark, 2004, p. 21+). That worldview proposes that evil is innate and further espouses the viewpoint that human conflicts must be controlled through coercion. It legitimizes the escalating use of force it appears Albright sought to avoid at least according to some of her biographers, despite as many as a dozen potentially incendiary conflicts that erupted during her tenure in the United States government. It does accord more with the actions of Margaret Thatcher, who might well have agreed with the current dictum that "national leaders must never lose face!" (Clark, 2004, p.