Comments on earlier posts regarding the emerging U.S. presidential race have touched on a topic that ought to be more sharply examined: just what qualities are needed in a good leader?
I’ve seen charts executive head-hunting firms use for corporate hires, which see different quality requirements to match a company’s situation. A small, fast-growing firm, for example, needs a much different kind of person than does a behemoth in a shrinking market. The compensation packages can vary widely, too, especially when considering the likely tenure of the hire. Somebody hired to shake things up might be expected to have a short and stormy span at the helm, unlike a more comforting presence for a smoothly functioning organization.
That said, back to political leadership. What qualities would you list as essential?
The ability to recognize talent and draw out others into a common cause has been suggested. Vision, compassion, intelligence, integrity, willingness to listen to critical perspectives and weight alternative actions are others. And then?
Maybe we’ve been overlooking the most obvious all along. What would you name?
Jnana's Red Barn 
The suggestions in the article are admirable qualities, but there’s such a conflict between what makes a good leader and what is required to get elected I expect I will die before I get to vote for anyone who has more than a modicum of these talents and virtues. So to me it doesn’t matter, except as a kind of theoretical debate among the ghosts of dead Athens.
I would like to see intelligence combined with a love of essential simplicity. This year’s choices are smart or simple, choose one, you can’t have both.
There are times when it makes sense to vote for the underdog, regardless of the chances of winning. After all, a modicum of talent and virtue may be the reason the hopeful is the underdog in the first place.
To me that depends on how far under the dog is, and how voting might affect the overall result. For example, voting for Ralph Nader may have been an ethical choice in the election of 2000, but the 2.7% vote he got came from Democratic-leaning voters, and therefore helped make a close contest between major party candidates closer and more controversial.
Personally I don’t want to vote for a president based on who I would want to have a beer with (as many people judge their next president). I want the president to be so intelligent and busy fixing problems that s/he doesn’t have time for hanging out and having a beer. I don’t want a president to be my friend. And I don’t want them to be an embarrassment and say stupid things. I want someone smart, who looks at the big picture and has the guts to address reality even if it is not popular. Someone who will lead. And someone honest who isn’t bought by special interest. Someone who is consistent with their views, beliefs and values. I know that sounds vague and idealistic, but it would be nice to have.
It’s not vague and idealistic at all. I’d say it’s essential to have. You’re right on track, as far as I can see.