No room for sexpots in our feminist orthodoxy?

I am having trouble figuring out what seems wrong about the following quote from highly respected columnist Susan Estrich:

"Marilyn Monroe, everyone kept saying. But Marilyn Monroe was a real actress. And Marilyn Monroe lived at a time when women had few choices other that to use their sexuality as their most important source of power. Marilyn Monroe was an icon when being beautiful was the only way for women to get close to powerful men. Marilyn Monroe was a role model when there were no powerful women to look up to.

Anna Nicole Smith wasn’t a throwback. She was a failure. If she were a flat-chested brunette, she might be alive today. She wasn’t made by her looks, but done in by them."

Several issues seem to be wrapped up in this short statement: MM was a "real actress" - but ANSmith only aspired to be one and probably never would have succeeded at that. So what? She succeeded at making money and becoming famous as a beautiful and sexy female. Then Susan Estrich says that only back in MM's day was it acceptable to gain fame and fortune by being beautiful because that was one of only a few avenues for a woman to acquire power. Now that there are more options, must women give up that one? Why should anyone surrender a natural advantage? Just because some orthodoxy doesn't think it is sophisticated enough?

ANSmith was unable to take enough control of her life to keep the problems from overwhelming the advantages she enjoyed. That is what did her in, just as too much money, or fame too young, or an IQ of 200 can wreck a life if mishandled. But saying "her looks [did her in]" is saying it is unacceptable to succeed on looks alone. Sounds a little like jealousy to me.